Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23765052›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2014

Next-generation carrier screening.

Mark A Umbarger, Caleb J Kennedy, Patrick Saunders, Benjamin Breton, Niru Chennagiri, John Emhoff, Valerie Greger, Stephanie Hallam, David Maganzini, Cynthia Micale and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. miR-183/96 plays a pivotal regulatory role in mouse photoreceptor maturation and maintenance.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark A UmbargerGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Caleb J KennedyGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Patrick SaundersGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Benjamin BretonGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Niru ChennagiriGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
John EmhoffGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Valerie GregerGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Stephanie HallamGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
David MaganziniGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Cynthia MicaleGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Marcia M NizzariGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Charles F TowneGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
George M ChurchDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Gregory J PorrecaGood Start Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Healthy Start · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCarrier screening for recessive Mendelian disorders traditionally employs focused genotyping to interrogate limited sets of mutations most prevalent in specific ethnic groups. We sought to develop a next-generation DNA sequencing-based workflow to enable analysis of a more comprehensive set of disease-causing mutations.

methodsWe utilized molecular inversion probes to capture the protein-coding regions of 15 genes from genomic DNA isolated from whole blood and sequenced those regions using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 (Illumina, San Diego, CA). To assess the quality of the resulting data, we measured both the fraction of the targeted region yielding high-quality genotype calls, and the sensitivity and specificity of those calls by comparison with conventional Sanger sequencing across hundreds of samples. Finally, to improve the overall accuracy for detecting insertions and deletions, we introduce a novel assembly-based approach that substantially increases sensitivity without reducing specificity.

resultsWe generated high-quality sequence for at least 99.8% of targeted base pairs in samples derived from blood and achieved high concordance with Sanger sequencing (sensitivity >99.9%, specificity >99.999%). Our novel algorithm is capable of detecting insertions and deletions inaccessible by current methods.

conclusionOur next-generation DNA sequencing-based approach yields the accuracy and completeness necessary for a carrier screening test.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanAnimalsDNA Mutational AnalysisGenetic TestingGenetic VariationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansINDEL MutationPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID23765052
PMCPMC3918543
OpenAlexW2130449728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.