FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2065827327> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2065827327 endingPage "1220" @default.
• W2065827327 startingPage "1216" @default.
• W2065827327 abstract "To the Editor: Uniparental disomy (UPD) arises when an individual inherits two copies of a specific chromosome from one parent and no copy from the other parent. This unusual non-Mendelian transmission of parental genes may lead to rare recessive disorders, or to developmental disturbances due to aberrant imprinting effects, in the zygote (Ledbetter and Engel Ledbetter and Engel, 1995Ledbetter DH Engel D Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis.Hum Mol Genet. 1995; 4: 1757-1764PubMed Google Scholar). However, UPD may also occur (at some unknown frequency) with no apparent phenotypic consequences. Recently, the Journal reported the first case of maternal chromosome 1 UPD (Pulkkinen et al. Pulkkinen et al., 1997Pulkkinen L Bullrich F Czarnecki P Weiss L Uitto J Maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 1 with reduction to homozygosity of the LAMB3 locus in a patient with Herlitz junctional epidermolysis bullosa.Am J Hum Genet. 1997; 61: 611-619Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar) and the first case of paternal chromosome 1 UPD (Gelb et al. Gelb et al., 1998Gelb BD Willner JP Dunn TM Kardon NB Verloes A Poncin J Desnick RJ Paternal uniparental disomy for chromosome 1 revealed by molecular analysis of a patient with pycnodysostosis.Am J Hum Genet. 1998; 62: 848-854Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar), both ascertained through a rare recessive condition. We report here the third case of chromosome 1 UPD, and the first UPD to be ascertained inadvertently during a genome-screen linkage study. All three reports suggest that there are no imprinted genes on chromosome 1 with a major effect on phenotype. The origin of UPD lies in meiotic nondisjunction events. UPD can result from nondisjunction during meiosis I or II in one parent, leading to a disomic gamete, followed by fertilization with a gamete nullisomic for that chromosome from the other parent (gamete complementation) or by postzygotic loss of the other parent's chromosome (trisomy rescue) (Engel Engel, 1993Engel E Uniparental disomy revisited: the first twelve years.Am J Med Genet. 1993; 46: 670-674Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar; Ledbetter and Engel Ledbetter and Engel, 1995Ledbetter DH Engel D Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis.Hum Mol Genet. 1995; 4: 1757-1764PubMed Google Scholar). If the nondisjunction occurs at meiosis I, the uniparental pair of chromosomes will contain the centromeric regions of both of the parent's homologues (primary heterodisomy), whereas if the nondisjunction occurs at meiosis II, the uniparental pair will contain the replicated centromeric region of one of the parent's homologues (primary isodisomy). Exchanges during meiosis I can introduce regions of homozygosity (secondary isodisomy) into a primary heterodisomy situation and, conversely, regions of heterozygosity (secondary heterodisomy) into a primary isodisomy situation. In addition to meiosis I and II errors, a third mechanism leading to UPD occurs when a normal monosomic gamete is fertilized by a nullisomic gamete, followed by postzygotic duplication of the single monosomic homologue (monosomy duplication)—this results in complete chromosome isodisomy, including the centromere, with no regions of heterozygosity (Engel Engel, 1993Engel E Uniparental disomy revisited: the first twelve years.Am J Med Genet. 1993; 46: 670-674Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar). Thus, centromeric heterodisomy (heterozygous markers) indicates a meiosis I error, whereas centromeric isodisomy (homozygous markers) indicates either a meiosis II error if there are other regions showing heterozygosity or postzygotic duplication if all other regions are homozygous. Since the homozygosity associated with UPD, generated either by primary or secondary isodisomy, consists of duplicate copies of alleles from a single chromosome, it carries an increased risk of homozygosity for deleterious recessive genes. Indeed, the presence of a recessive disease in the offspring has been the mode of ascertainment of many examples of UPD (reviewed in Pulkkinen et al. Pulkkinen et al., 1997Pulkkinen L Bullrich F Czarnecki P Weiss L Uitto J Maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 1 with reduction to homozygosity of the LAMB3 locus in a patient with Herlitz junctional epidermolysis bullosa.Am J Hum Genet. 1997; 61: 611-619Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar). Similarly, if a chromosome carries imprinted genes, so that one active allele at the imprinted locus is necessary for normal growth and development of the embryo, UPD may be associated with intrauterine growth retardation and other developmental abnormalities (reviewed in Hall Hall, 1990Hall JG Genomic imprinting: review and relevance to human diseases.Am J Hum Genet. 1990; 46: 857-873PubMed Google Scholar; Ledbetter and Engel Ledbetter and Engel, 1995Ledbetter DH Engel D Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis.Hum Mol Genet. 1995; 4: 1757-1764PubMed Google Scholar). However, since the advent of comprehensive genomewide genotyping for purposes of genetic linkage analysis, the possibility now exists that phenotypically “invisible” cases of UPD, not ascertained through recessive disease or through imprinting-associated abnormalities, will be discovered. We have been performing genome screening of families having at least two children affected with type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes, in order to identify by linkage analysis genes predisposing to this disorder (Field et al. Field et al., 1994Field LL Tobias R Magnus T A locus on chromosome 15q26 (IDDM3) produces susceptibility to insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.Nat Genet. 1994; 8: 189-194Crossref PubMed Scopus (172) Google Scholar, Field et al., 1996Field LL Tobias R Thomson G Plon S Susceptibility to insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus maps to a locus (IDDM11) on human chromosome 14q24.3-q31.Genomics. 1996; 33: 1-8Crossref PubMed Scopus (106) Google Scholar). A subset of 77 families including 203 children and all their parents has been typed for 187 markers across all chromosomes. During the course of these studies, family BD94 (DNA obtained from the British Diabetes Association Warren Repository [Bain et al. Bain et al., 1990Bain SC Todd JA Barnett AH The British Diabetes Association-Warren Repository.Autoimmunity. 1990; 7: 83-85Crossref PubMed Scopus (74) Google Scholar]) was noted to produce numerous marker-typing incompatibilities between the second diabetic child and her father. Closer inspection revealed that the incompatibilities between the father and the second child only involved some of the 14 marker loci typed on chromosome 1, whereas genotyping at 173 microsatellite loci on chromosomes 2 through X (multiple markers on all chromosomes) produced no incompatibilities, proving conclusively that the putative father was the biological father. An additional 15 markers on chromosome 1 were then genotyped for all family members, and further clinical details about the family, particularly the second child, were obtained following a separate informed consent. Table 1 shows the results of typing 29 chromosome 1 markers and the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) types provided by the BDA. For simplicity, genotypes are shown as recoded alleles, with the mother's alleles and then the father's alleles numbered from smallest to largest and with alleles of identical size receiving the same number code (for example, at D1S159, the mother is 145/147, the father 147/149, the first child 147/149, and the second child 145/145). Markers are listed from pter to qter, with positions on the female genetic map indicated in centimorgans according to information from the Marshfield Center for Medical Genetics Website.Table 1Results of Typing 29 Chromosome 1 Microsatellites and Chromosome 6 HLA LociMarker or StatusCytogenetic LocationGenetic Location (Female cM)MotherFatherChild1Child2D1S468…4.51,21,11,21,2D1S1612…17.81,23,42,41,2aIncompatibility with father.D1S1368……1,21,31,21,2D1S1622…68.51,12,31,21,1aIncompatibility with father.D1S186…84.61,23,41,41,2aIncompatibility with father.D1S2134…1001,22,21,21,2D1S405…1171,11,11,11,1D1S3728…1221,12,21,21,1aIncompatibility with father.D1S198p32-p331321,23,42,41,2aIncompatibility with father.D1S159p32…1,22,32,31,1a,Incompatibility with father.bDemonstrable maternal isodisomy.D1S410…1351,11,21,21,1D1S1665…1371,21,31,12,2a,Incompatibility with father.bDemonstrable maternal isodisomy.D1S550……1,22,32,21,1a,Incompatibility with father.bDemonstrable maternal isodisomy.D1S1728…1441,22,31,32,2bDemonstrable maternal isodisomy.D1S551…1511,11,21,11,1D1S1159…1511,22,31,32,2bDemonstrable maternal isodisomy.D1S116p21-p31…1,11,21,11,1D1S1588…1671,23,42,41,2aIncompatibility with father.AMY2Bp21…1,21,31,11,2D1S1631…1771,22,31,21,2D1S305…2101,12,31,31,1aIncompatibility with father.APOA2q21-q232271,23,41,41,2aIncompatibility with father.D1S1589…2451,21,32,31,2D1S117q23-q25…1,23,31,31,2aIncompatibility with father.D1S1660…2711,23,42,31,2aIncompatibility with father.GATA124F08……1,21,11,21,2D1S213q32-q443121,23,42,41,2aIncompatibility with father.D1S103q32-q443171,23,42,41,2aIncompatibility with father.D1S547…3511,23,42,41,2aIncompatibility with father.HLA-A1,23,311,311,31HLA-B8,6265,608,608,60HLA-C7,38,37,37,3HLA-DRB3,413,43,43,4HLA-DQB2,31,82,82,8+ = high risk HLA haplotype+,+−,++,++,+Type 1 diabetes presentYesNoYesYesa Incompatibility with father.b Demonstrable maternal isodisomy. Open table in a new tab Of the 29 chromosome 1 markers, 16 markers, distributed across the entire chromosome, show incompatibility (indicated in table 1) between the father and the second diabetic child, labeled “Child2.” For all 29 markers, the second child's genotype is either identical to the mother's genotype or (in a small region on the short arm) shows only a single allele found in the mother. For the latter cases, if the mother is heterozygous but the child is homozygous, then maternal isodisomy is present (indicated in table 1). The centromeric region is heterodisomic. This pattern is consistent with maternal uniparental primary heterodisomy (arising from nondisjunction during meiosis I), with an embedded region of homozygosity (secondary isodisomy) on the short arm created by a double exchange event. The isodisomic region within the double exchange includes markers D1S159, D1S410, D1S1665, D1S550, D1S1728, D1S551, D1S1159, and possibly D1S116 (the mother is uninformative for the latter), which have all been cytogenetically localized between 1p21 and 1p32. Advanced maternal age is often associated with increased risk of nondisjunction, but this is not relevant in the present study, since the mother was 21 years old at the time of the birth of her second child. The region of homozygosity encompassed by the two recombination events appears to be quite small: the estimated genetic distance between D1S159 and D1S1159 is 16–35 cM (see table 1: 151-135=16, and 167-132=35) in a total female-chromosome length of ∼365 cM, according to the Marshfield maps. The other case of maternal chromosome 1 UPD primary heterodisomy also shows only a single region of secondary isodisomy (∼35 cM on the long arm), created by a double meiotic exchange event (Pulkkinen et al. Pulkkinen et al., 1997Pulkkinen L Bullrich F Czarnecki P Weiss L Uitto J Maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 1 with reduction to homozygosity of the LAMB3 locus in a patient with Herlitz junctional epidermolysis bullosa.Am J Hum Genet. 1997; 61: 611-619Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar). It is possible that unusual recombination patterns (e.g., decreased number of chiasmata or closely adjacent chiasmata) predispose to nondisjunction in meiosis I and thus increase the probability of UPD (Koehler et al. Koehler et al., 1996Koehler KE Hawley RS Sherman S Hassold T Recombination and nondisjunction in humans and flies.Hum Mol Genet. 1996; 5: 1495-1504Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). Alternatively, possession of larger regions of homozygosity in heterodisomic UPD zygotes would increase the risk of recessive lethal conditions, so that these zygotes may be selected against early in development. However, it also is possible that the actual number of detected exchanges (i.e., two) may not be particularly unusual. The expected number of chiasmata occurring between chromatids of paired homologues for a chromosome 365 cM long, which is the size of chromosome 1, is on average seven. We have calculated (on the basis of probabilities from table 2 in Robinson et al. Robinson et al., 1993Robinson WP Bernasconi F Mutirangura A Ledbetter DH Langlois S Malcolm S Morris MA et al.Nondisjunction of chromosome 15: origin and recombination.Am J Hum Genet. 1993; 53: 740-751PubMed Google Scholar) that the chance of observing ≤2 transitions in a UPD zygote, when seven chiasmata have occurred during meiosis, is 8.6%. (The term “exchange” refers to a chiasma that has occurred in the meiosis I tetrad, whereas “transition” refers to a transition from heterodisomy to isodisomy, or vice versa, in a disomic gamete.) The probability of observing ≤2 transitions would be even higher if there was incomplete marker coverage such that a transition event could be missed (which is possible in the present study) and/or if 365 cM is an overestimate of the true map length due to typing errors (genetic maps are commonly inflated for this reason), so that the expected number of chiasmata is actually less than seven. The reason that so few transitions might be observed, even if as many as seven chiasmata have taken place, is that for a transition to be observable by extensive marker typing in a UPD zygote, the exchange event must occur between a transmitted and a nontransmitted chromatid (i.e., about half of exchanges result in potentially observable transitions, when random involvement of chromatids in chiasmata formation is assumed). Furthermore, for a transition to be observable, the mother must be heterozygous for one or more markers proximal to the exchange. Thus, although it may seem that few exchanges have occurred during the meiosis I event leading to this zygote with chromosome 1 UPD, the actual number of transitions is not significantly different from the expected number. Trisomy 1 conceptuses have not been observed in spontaneous abortions (Hassold et al. Hassold et al., 1996Hassold T Abruzzo M Adkins K Griffin D Merrill M Millie E Saker D et al.Human aneuploidy: incidence, origin, and etiology.Environ Mol Mutagen. 1996; 28: 167-175Crossref PubMed Scopus (354) Google Scholar), except for one report of a lost pregnancy with no fetal development (Hanna et al. Hanna et al., 1997Hanna JS Shires P Matile G Trisomy-1 in a clinically recognized pregnancy.Am J Med Genet. 1997; 68: 98Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar), or among cases of prenatally diagnosed placental or fetal mosaicism (Ledbetter et al. Ledbetter et al., 1992Ledbetter DH Zachary JM Simpson JL Golbus MS Pergament E Jackson L Mahoney MJ et al.Cytogenetic results from the US Collaborative Study on CVS.Prenat Diagn. 1992; 12: 317-345Crossref PubMed Scopus (287) Google Scholar; Teshima et al. Teshima et al., 1992Teshima IE Kalousek DK Vekemans MJ Markovic V Cox DM Dallaire L Gagne R et al.Canadian multicenter randomized clinical trial of chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis: chromosome mosaicism in CVS and amniocentesis samples.Prenat Diagn. 1992; 12: 443-466Crossref PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar; Hahnemann and Vejerslev Hahnemann and Vejerslev, 1997Hahnemann JM Vejerslev LO European Collaborative Research on Mosaicism in CVS (EUCROMIC): fetal and extrafetal cell lineages in 192 gestations with CVS mosaicism involving single autosomal trisomy.Am J Med Genet. 1997; 70: 179-187Crossref PubMed Scopus (114) Google Scholar). To our knowledge, there are only two reports of trisomy 1 mosaicism in humans (outside of cancer cells) (Neu et al. Neu et al., 1988Neu RL Kouseff BG Madan S Essig Y-P Miller K Tedesco TA Monosomy, trisomy, fragile sites, and rearrangements of chromosome 1 in a mentally retarded male with multiple congenital anomalies.Clin Genet. 1988; 33: 73-77Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar; Howard et al. Howard et al., 1995Howard PJ Cramp CE Fryer AE Trisomy 1 mosaicism only detected on a direct chromosome preparation in a neonate.Clin Genet. 1995; 48: 313-316Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar). However, molecular studies to determine the origin of the trisomy were not performed in either case, and in at least one case both monosomy and trisomy 1 cells were present, indicating that the trisomy arose as a somatic event during development (Neu et al. Neu et al., 1988Neu RL Kouseff BG Madan S Essig Y-P Miller K Tedesco TA Monosomy, trisomy, fragile sites, and rearrangements of chromosome 1 in a mentally retarded male with multiple congenital anomalies.Clin Genet. 1988; 33: 73-77Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar). On the other hand, sperm or oocytes aneuploid for chromosome 1 are not uncommon (Martin et al. Martin et al., 1991Martin RH Ko E Rademaker AW Distribution of aneuploidy in human gametes: comparison between human sperm and oocytes.Am J Med Genet. 1991; 39: 321-331Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar, Martin et al., 1995Martin RH Spriggs E Ko E Rademaker AW The relationship between paternal age, sex ratios, and aneuploidy frequencies in human sperm, as assessed by multicolor FISH.Am J Hum Genet. 1995; 57: 1395-1399PubMed Google Scholar; Spriggs et al. Spriggs et al., 1996Spriggs EL Rademaker AW Martin RH Aneuploidy in human sperm: the use of multicolor FISH to test various theories of nondisjunction.Am J Hum Genet. 1996; 58: 356-362PubMed Google Scholar). This suggests that trisomy 1 conceptuses occur but die prior to implantation. Thus, the finding of chromosome 1 UPD of maternal meiotic origin is most likely due to a gamete complementation mechanism (fertilization of a disomic egg with a sperm nullisomic for chromosome 1) rather than a trisomy-rescue mechanism (postzygotic loss of the father's chromosome 1), unless the trisomy rescue occurred in the first one or two cell divisions with complete selection against the trisomic cells. The mother and both of the two children in this family have type 1 diabetes, and all three individuals have HLA genotypes associated with a high risk of developing diabetes (see table 1). It is well established that the HLA region contains the strongest susceptibility genes for this disease (for a review of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus [IDDM] genetics, see Field and Tobias Field and Tobias, 1997Field LL Tobias R Unravelling a complex trait: the genetics of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.Clin Invest Med. 1997; 20: 41-49PubMed Google Scholar). Thus, we assume that the presence of chromosome 1 UPD in one of the diabetic children is unrelated to her IDDM. Apart from her diabetes, she has no other unusual conditions. There was no evidence of dysmorphic features at birth. She had a full-term birth weight of 2,930 g (consistent with that of her mother and older brother, whose full-term birth weights were 2,840 g and 2,870 g, respectively), with no indication of intrauterine growth retardation. Subsequently (she is now 23 years old), she showed no signs of mental or developmental retardation or precocious puberty. In the two other cases of chromosome 1 UPD (Pulkkinen et al. Pulkkinen et al., 1997Pulkkinen L Bullrich F Czarnecki P Weiss L Uitto J Maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 1 with reduction to homozygosity of the LAMB3 locus in a patient with Herlitz junctional epidermolysis bullosa.Am J Hum Genet. 1997; 61: 611-619Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar; Gelb et al. Gelb et al., 1998Gelb BD Willner JP Dunn TM Kardon NB Verloes A Poncin J Desnick RJ Paternal uniparental disomy for chromosome 1 revealed by molecular analysis of a patient with pycnodysostosis.Am J Hum Genet. 1998; 62: 848-854Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar), ascertainment was through a rare recessive disorder, but there were no features suggestive of imprinting, such as growth or developmental abnormalities. However, since the infant with maternal chromosome 1 UPD died at 2 mo of age (Pulkkinen et al. Pulkkinen et al., 1997Pulkkinen L Bullrich F Czarnecki P Weiss L Uitto J Maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 1 with reduction to homozygosity of the LAMB3 locus in a patient with Herlitz junctional epidermolysis bullosa.Am J Hum Genet. 1997; 61: 611-619Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar), the present case of maternal chromosome 1 UPD in a developmentally normal adult provides valuable additional evidence that there are no imprinted genes on chromosome 1 with major phenotypic effects. This has potential implications for prenatal diagnosis if chorionic villus sampling (CVS) reveals trisomy mosaicism and later amniotic fluid sampling shows fetal disomy (apparent trisomy rescue), since these cases theoretically have a one in three risk of UPD for the relevant chromosome and any associated imprinting effects (Ledbetter and Engel Ledbetter and Engel, 1995Ledbetter DH Engel D Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis.Hum Mol Genet. 1995; 4: 1757-1764PubMed Google Scholar). However, as discussed above, it is probable that conceptuses trisomic for chromosome 1 die before implantation and therefore are unlikely to be detected by CVS. The data presented here, combined with that from other reports of UPD (Jones et al. Jones et al., 1995Jones C Booth C Rita D Jazmines L Spiro R McCulloch B McCaskill C et al.Identification of a case of maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 10 associated with confined placental mosaicism.Prenat Diagn. 1995; 15: 843-848Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar; Ledbetter and Engel Ledbetter and Engel, 1995Ledbetter DH Engel D Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis.Hum Mol Genet. 1995; 4: 1757-1764PubMed Google Scholar), suggest that, in the absence of isodisomy for recessive deleterious genes, uniparental disomy for chromosomes that do not harbor imprinted loci may be quite harmless. If so, it would be of interest to know the frequency of this phenomenon in the normal general population. In our laboratory, we have typed >200 children (and their parents) for markers relatively densely distributed across the genome, and this is the first case of UPD that we have recognized. Other laboratories performing large-scale linkage-mapping projects may encounter UPD but may attribute it to lab typing errors, null alleles, or nonpaternity. The possibility of UPD should be considered when typing incompatibilities occur repeatedly for the same family in genome-screen projects, since such studies represent an important source for discovery of additional cases of UPD with no apparent phenotypic effects. We thank the members of family BD94 for their generous participation. BD94 was made available, by the British Diabetic Association (BDA), from the BDA–Warren Repository of multiplex families with type 1 diabetes. We also thank E. Swiergala for her skillful laboratory assistance. This research was funded by grants to L.L.F. from the Medical Research Council of Canada (MT-7910) and the Network of Centres of Excellence Programme of the Canadian government. L.L.F. is an Alberta Heritage Medical Scientist. URL for data in this article is as follows: Marshfield Center for Medical Genetics, http://www.marshmed.org/genetics (for marker mapping information)" @default.
• W2065827327 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2065827327 creator A5013089365 @default.
• W2065827327 creator A5063333068 @default.
• W2065827327 creator A5080463002 @default.
• W2065827327 creator A5086649100 @default.
• W2065827327 creator A5088956309 @default.
• W2065827327 date "1998-10-01" @default.
• W2065827327 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2065827327 title "Maternal Uniparental Disomy of Chromosome 1 with No Apparent Phenotypic Effects" @default.
• W2065827327 cites W1824780271 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W1977255988 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W1988773194 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W1990472926 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W1997865921 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2002144120 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2010466566 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2013581245 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2023334953 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2033845019 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2041162315 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2085307572 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2091896530 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2114621300 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2139454112 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2153811589 @default.
• W2065827327 cites W2160017466 @default.
• W2065827327 doi "https://doi.org/10.1086/302050" @default.
• W2065827327 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/1377482" @default.
• W2065827327 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9758608" @default.
• W2065827327 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W2065827327 type Work @default.
• W2065827327 sameAs 2065827327 @default.
• W2065827327 citedByCount "40" @default.
• W2065827327 countsByYear W20658273272012 @default.
• W2065827327 countsByYear W20658273272013 @default.
• W2065827327 countsByYear W20658273272014 @default.
• W2065827327 countsByYear W20658273272016 @default.
• W2065827327 countsByYear W20658273272017 @default.
• W2065827327 countsByYear W20658273272019 @default.
• W2065827327 countsByYear W20658273272022 @default.
• W2065827327 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2065827327 hasAuthorship W2065827327A5013089365 @default.
• W2065827327 hasAuthorship W2065827327A5063333068 @default.
• W2065827327 hasAuthorship W2065827327A5080463002 @default.
• W2065827327 hasAuthorship W2065827327A5086649100 @default.
• W2065827327 hasAuthorship W2065827327A5088956309 @default.
• W2065827327 hasBestOaLocation W20658273271 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConcept C127716648 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConcept C2780332060 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConcept C30481170 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConcept C53226629 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConceptScore W2065827327C104317684 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConceptScore W2065827327C127716648 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConceptScore W2065827327C2780332060 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConceptScore W2065827327C30481170 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConceptScore W2065827327C53226629 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConceptScore W2065827327C54355233 @default.
• W2065827327 hasConceptScore W2065827327C86803240 @default.
• W2065827327 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2065827327 hasLocation W20658273271 @default.
• W2065827327 hasLocation W20658273272 @default.
• W2065827327 hasLocation W20658273273 @default.
• W2065827327 hasLocation W20658273274 @default.
• W2065827327 hasOpenAccess W2065827327 @default.
• W2065827327 hasPrimaryLocation W20658273271 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W1516968396 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W1991523530 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2002128513 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2020824267 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2031436818 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2038434389 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2057739827 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2075354549 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2185890143 @default.
• W2065827327 hasRelatedWork W2092874662 @default.
• W2065827327 hasVolume "63" @default.
• W2065827327 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2065827327 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2065827327 magId "2065827327" @default.
• W2065827327 workType "article" @default.