ArticleBMC genomics2009
Statistical aspects of discerning indel-type structural variation via DNA sequence alignment.
Article in BMC genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Primer on Infectious Disease Bacterial Genomics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016Review
- Article
- Expanding the computational toolbox for mining cancer genomes.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2014Review
- Advances for studying clonal evolution in cancer.Cancer letters · 2013Review
- Coverage theories for metagenomic DNA sequencing based on a generalization of Stevens' theorem.Journal of mathematical biology · 2013Article
- Consistency-based detection of potential tumor-specific deletions in matched normal/tumor genomes.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- Efficient study design for next generation sequencing.Genetic epidemiology · 2011Article
- Challenges of sequencing human genomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStructural variations in the form of DNA insertions and deletions are an important aspect of human genetics and especially relevant to medical disorders. Investigations have shown that such events can be detected via tell-tale discrepancies in the aligned lengths of paired-end DNA sequencing reads. Quantitative aspects underlying this method remain poorly understood, despite its importance and conceptual simplicity. We report the statistical theory characterizing the length-discrepancy scheme for Gaussian libraries, including coverage-related effects that preceding models are unable to account for.
resultsDeletion and insertion statistics both depend heavily on physical coverage, but otherwise differ dramatically, refuting a commonly held doctrine of symmetry. Specifically, coverage restrictions render insertions much more difficult to capture. Increased read length has the counterintuitive effect of worsening insertion detection characteristics of short inserts. Variance in library insert length is also a critical factor here and should be minimized to the greatest degree possible. Conversely, no significant improvement would be realized in lowering fosmid variances beyond current levels. Detection power is examined under a straightforward alternative hypothesis and found to be generally acceptable. We also consider the proposition of characterizing variation over the entire spectrum of variant sizes under constant risk of false-positive errors. At 1% risk, many designs will leave a significant gap in the 100 to 200 bp neighborhood, requiring unacceptably high redundancies to compensate. We show that a few modifications largely close this gap and we give a few examples of feasible spectrum-covering designs.
conclusionThe theory resolves several outstanding issues and furnishes a general methodology for designing future projects from the standpoint of a spectrum-wide constant risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.