Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24498629›Full record

ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2014

Identification and validation of loss of function variants in clinical contexts.

Francesco Lescai, Elena Marasco, Chiara Bacchelli, Philip Stanier, Vilma Mantovani, Philip Beales

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Francesco LescaiUniversity College London, Institute of Child Health, GOSgene team London, U.K ; Department of Biomedicine, Human Genetics, Aarhus University Aarhus, Denmark.
Elena MarascoCRBA Centro Ricerca Biomedica Applicata, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico S. Orsola - Malpighi Bologna, Italy.
Chiara BacchelliUniversity College London, Institute of Child Health, GOSgene team London, U.K.
Philip StanierUniversity College London, Institute of Child Health, GOSgene team London, U.K.
Vilma MantovaniDepartment of Biomedicine, Human Genetics, Aarhus University Aarhus, Denmark.
Philip BealesUniversity College London, Institute of Child Health, GOSgene team London, U.K.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801843
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The choice of an appropriate variant calling pipeline for exome sequencing data is becoming increasingly more important in translational medicine projects and clinical contexts. Within GOSgene, which facilitates genetic analysis as part of a joint effort of the University College London and the Great Ormond Street Hospital, we aimed to optimize a variant calling pipeline suitable for our clinical context. We implemented the GATK/Queue framework and evaluated the performance of its two callers: the classical UnifiedGenotyper and the new variant discovery tool HaplotypeCaller. We performed an experimental validation of the loss-of-function (LoF) variants called by the two methods using Sequenom technology. UnifiedGenotyper showed a total validation rate of 97.6% for LoF single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 92.0% for insertions or deletions (INDELs), whereas HaplotypeCaller was 91.7% for SNPs and 55.9% for INDELs. We confirm that GATK/Queue is a reliable pipeline in translational medicine and clinical context. We conclude that in our working environment, UnifiedGenotyper is the caller of choice, being an accurate method, with a high validation rate of error-prone calls like LoF variants. We finally highlight the importance of experimental validation, especially for INDELs, as part of a standard pipeline in clinical environments.

Indexed as

GATKpipelinessequencingvariant calling

Identifiers

PMID24498629
PMCPMC3907911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.