Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26269718›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2015

Achieving high-sensitivity for clinical applications using augmented exome sequencing.

Anil Patwardhan, Jason Harris, Nan Leng, Gabor Bartha, Deanna M Church, Shujun Luo, Christian Haudenschild, Mark Pratt, Justin Zook, Marc Salit and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Predictors of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Response in dMMR Colorectal Cancer Using an Integrated Immune-Enhanced Multiomics Platform.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Prediction of Immunotherapy Response in Melanoma through Combined Modeling of Neoantigen Burden and Immune-Related Resistance Mechanisms.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

25 authors.

Anil PatwardhanPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Jason HarrisPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Nan LengPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Gabor BarthaPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Deanna M ChurchPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Shujun LuoPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Christian HaudenschildPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Mark PrattPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Justin ZookBiosystems and Biomaterials Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland USA.
Marc SalitBiosystems and Biomaterials Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland USA.
Jeanie TirchPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Massimo MorraPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Stephen ChervitzPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Ming LiPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Michael ClarkPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Sarah GarciaPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Gemma ChandratillakePersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Scott KirkPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Euan AshleyPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA ; Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305 USA.
Michael SnyderPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA ; Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305 USA.
Russ AltmanPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA ; Departments of Bioengineering & Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 USA.
Carlos BustamanteDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305 USA.
Atul J ButtePersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA ; Institute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158 USA.
John WestPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.
Richard ChenPersonalis, Inc, 1330 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole exome sequencing is increasingly used for the clinical evaluation of genetic disease, yet the variation of coverage and sensitivity over medically relevant parts of the genome remains poorly understood. Several sequencing-based assays continue to provide coverage that is inadequate for clinical assessment.

methodsUsing sequence data obtained from the NA12878 reference sample and pre-defined lists of medically-relevant protein-coding and noncoding sequences, we compared the breadth and depth of coverage obtained among four commercial exome capture platforms and whole genome sequencing. In addition, we evaluated the performance of an augmented exome strategy, ACE, that extends coverage in medically relevant regions and enhances coverage in areas that are challenging to sequence. Leveraging reference call-sets, we also examined the effects of improved coverage on variant detection sensitivity.

resultsWe observed coverage shortfalls with each of the conventional exome-capture and whole-genome platforms across several medically interpretable genes. These gaps included areas of the genome required for reporting recently established secondary findings (ACMG) and known disease-associated loci. The augmented exome strategy recovered many of these gaps, resulting in improved coverage in these areas. At clinically-relevant coverage levels (100 % bases covered at ≥20×), ACE improved coverage among genes in the medically interpretable genome (>90 % covered relative to 10-78 % with other platforms), the set of ACMG secondary finding genes (91 % covered relative to 4-75 % with other platforms) and a subset of variants known to be associated with human disease (99 % covered relative to 52-95 % with other platforms). Improved coverage translated into improvements in sensitivity, with ACE variant detection sensitivities (>97.5 % SNVs, >92.5 % InDels) exceeding that observed with conventional whole-exome and whole-genome platforms.

conclusionsClinicians should consider analytical performance when making clinical assessments, given that even a few missed variants can lead to reporting false negative results. An augmented exome strategy provides a level of coverage not achievable with other platforms, thus addressing concerns regarding the lack of sensitivity in clinically important regions. In clinical applications where comprehensive coverage of medically interpretable areas of the genome requires higher localized sequencing depth, an augmented exome approach offers both cost and performance advantages over other sequencing-based tests.

Indexed as

ExomeGenome, HumanHumansSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID26269718
PMCPMC4534066

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.