ArticleFrontiers in genetics2014
The struggle to find reliable results in exome sequencing data: filtering out Mendelian errors.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Next-generation Sequencing and Other Second Tier Tests in Newborn Screening for (X-linked) Agammaglobulinemia.Journal of clinical immunology · 2025Article
- Exome sequencing of a Portuguese cohort of early-onset Alzheimer's disease implicates the X-linked lysosomal gene GLA.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Shotgun metagenomics reveals interkingdom association between intestinal bacteria and fungi involving competition for nutrients.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Whole-exome sequencing reveals PSEN1 and ATP7B combined variants as a possible cause of early-onset Lewy body dementia: a case study of genotype-phenotype correlation.Neurogenetics · 2022Article
- High-throughput method for the hybridisation-based targeted enrichment of long genomic fragments for PacBio third-generation sequencing.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Genetic analysis reveals novel variants for vascular cognitive impairment.Acta neurologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- Article
- Rare variants in TP73 in a frontotemporal dementia cohort link this gene with primary progressive aphasia phenotypes.European journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Exome Sequencing of a Portuguese Cohort of Frontotemporal Dementia Patients: Looking Into the ALS-FTD Continuum.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Desmoplakin and periplakin genetically and functionally contribute to eosinophilic esophagitis.Nature communications · 2021Observational
- Estimating sequencing error rates using families.BioData mining · 2021Article
- AutoMap is a high performance homozygosity mapping tool using next-generation sequencing data.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Parentage and relatedness reconstruction in Pinus sylvestris using genotyping-by-sequencing.Heredity · 2020Article
- Actionable Exomic Secondary Findings in 280 Lebanese Participants.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Article
- Accurate sequence variant genotyping in cattle using variation-aware genome graphs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2019Article
- Mendelian Inconsistent Signatures from 1314 Ancestrally Diverse Family Trios Distinguish Biological Variation from Sequencing Error.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2019Article
- Genetic variants at the 16p13 locus confer risk for eosinophilic esophagitis.Genes and immunity · 2019Article
- Transcriptomic Analysis Links Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Atopic Dermatitis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Article
- Using human sequencing to guide craniofacial research.Genesis (New York, N.Y. : 2000) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Next Generation Sequencing studies generate a large quantity of genetic data in a relatively cost and time efficient manner and provide an unprecedented opportunity to identify candidate causative variants that lead to disease phenotypes. A challenge to these studies is the generation of sequencing artifacts by current technologies. To identify and characterize the properties that distinguish false positive variants from true variants, we sequenced a child and both parents (one trio) using DNA isolated from three sources (blood, buccal cells, and saliva). The trio strategy allowed us to identify variants in the proband that could not have been inherited from the parents (Mendelian errors) and would most likely indicate sequencing artifacts. Quality control measurements were examined and three measurements were found to identify the greatest number of Mendelian errors. These included read depth, genotype quality score, and alternate allele ratio. Filtering the variants on these measurements removed ~95% of the Mendelian errors while retaining 80% of the called variants. These filters were applied independently. After filtering, the concordance between identical samples isolated from different sources was 99.99% as compared to 87% before filtering. This high concordance suggests that different sources of DNA can be used in trio studies without affecting the ability to identify causative polymorphisms. To facilitate analysis of next generation sequencing data, we developed the Cincinnati Analytical Suite for Sequencing Informatics (CASSI) to store sequencing files, metadata (eg. relatedness information), file versioning, data filtering, variant annotation, and identify candidate causative polymorphisms that follow either de novo, rare recessive homozygous or compound heterozygous inheritance models. We conclude the data cleaning process improves the signal to noise ratio in terms of variants and facilitates the identification of candidate disease causative polymorphisms.
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.