ArticlePloS one2015
Bioinformatic Challenges in Clinical Diagnostic Application of Targeted Next Generation Sequencing: Experience from Pheochromocytoma.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Von Hippel-Lindau "Black Forest" mutation inherited in a large Chinese family.Gland surgery · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Calling Performance of a Rare Disease NGS Panel for Single Nucleotide and Copy Number Variants.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2017Article
- Metabologenomics of Phaeochromocytoma and Paraganglioma: An Integrated Approach for Personalised Biochemical and Genetic Testing.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2017Review
- Precision medicine in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: current and future concepts.Journal of internal medicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies have demonstrated equal quality of targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) compared to Sanger Sequencing. Whereas these novel sequencing processes have a validated robust performance, choice of enrichment method and different available bioinformatic software as reliable analysis tool needs to be further investigated in a diagnostic setting.
methodsDNA from 21 patients with genetic variants in SDHB, VHL, EPAS1, RET, (n=17) or clinical criteria of NF1 syndrome (n=4) were included. Targeted NGS was performed using Truseq custom amplicon enrichment sequenced on an Illumina MiSEQ instrument. Results were analysed in parallel using three different bioinformatics pipelines; (1) Commercially available MiSEQ Reporter, fully automatized and integrated software, (2) CLC Genomics Workbench, graphical interface based software, also commercially available, and ICP (3) an in-house scripted custom bioinformatic tool.
resultsA tenfold read coverage was achieved in between 95-98% of targeted bases. All workflows had alignment of reads to SDHA and NF1 pseudogenes. Compared to Sanger sequencing, variant calling revealed a sensitivity ranging from 83 to 100% and a specificity of 99.9-100%. Only MiSEQ reporter identified all pathogenic variants in both sequencing runs.
conclusionsWe conclude that targeted next generation sequencing have equal quality compared to Sanger sequencing. Enrichment specificity and the bioinformatic performance need to be carefully assessed in a diagnostic setting. As acceptable accuracy was noted for a fully automated bioinformatic workflow, we suggest that processing of NGS data could be performed without expert bioinformatics skills utilizing already existing commercially available bioinformatics tools.
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.