ArticleGenome medicine2016
Medical implications of technical accuracy in genome sequencing.
Article in Genome medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 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
74 citing papers in PubMed, 153 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational strategies for copy number variation detection, disease association, and beyond.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Article
- Clinical use of polygenic risk scores: current status, barriers and future directions.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Base editing rescues seizures and sudden death in a SCN8A mutation-associated developmental epileptic encephalopathy model.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026Article
- Analytical Validation of a Genomic Newborn Screening Workflow.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Population-scale Long-read Sequencing in themedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Tutorial: guidelines for quality filtering of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing data for population-scale association analyses.Nature protocols · 2025Review
- Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing in Critically Ill Infants and Children with Suspected, Undiagnosed Genetic Diseases: Evolution to a First-Tier Clinical Laboratory Test in the Era of Precision Medicine.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- All the sites we cannot see: Sources and mitigation of false negatives in RNA modification studies.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2025Review
- Article
- Generative haplotype prediction outperforms statistical methods for small variant detection in next-generation sequencing data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- A universal molecular control for DNA, mRNA and protein expression.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A novel synthetic nucleic acid mixture for quantification of microbes by mNGS.Microbial genomics · 2024Article
- The diagnostic odyssey of a patient with dihydropyrimidinase deficiency: a case report and review of the literature.Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2023Review
- Quartet DNA reference materials and datasets for comprehensively evaluating germline variant calling performance.Genome biology · 2023Article
- S-leaping: an efficient downsampling method for large high-throughput sequencing data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- The Future of Newborn Genomic Testing.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Prenatal exome and genome sequencing for fetal structural abnormalities.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Review
- Article
- A review of deep learning applications in human genomics using next-generation sequencing data.Human genomics · 2022Review
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) transition from research tools to clinical diagnostic tests, it is increasingly critical for sequencing methods and analysis pipelines to be technically accurate. The Genome in a Bottle Consortium has recently published a set of benchmark SNV, indel, and homozygous reference genotypes for the pilot whole genome NIST Reference Material based on the NA12878 genome.
methodsWe examine the relationship between human genome complexity and genes/variants reported to be associated with human disease. Specifically, we map regions of medical relevance to benchmark regions of high or low confidence. We use benchmark data to assess the sensitivity and positive predictive value of two representative sequencing pipelines for specific classes of variation.
resultsWe observe that the accuracy of a variant call depends on the genomic region, variant type, and read depth, and varies by analytical pipeline. We find that most false negative WGS calls result from filtering while most false negative WES variants relate to poor coverage. We find that only 74.6% of the exonic bases in ClinVar and OMIM genes and 82.1% of the exonic bases in ACMG-reportable genes are found in high-confidence regions. Only 990 genes in the genome are found entirely within high-confidence regions while 593 of 3,300 ClinVar/OMIM genes have less than 50% of their total exonic base pairs in high-confidence regions. We find greater than 77 % of the pathogenic or likely pathogenic SNVs currently in ClinVar fall within high-confidence regions. We identify sites that are prone to sequencing errors, including thousands present in publicly available variant databases. Finally, we examine the clinical impact of mandatory reporting of secondary findings, highlighting a false positive variant found in BRCA2.
conclusionsTogether, these data illustrate the importance of appropriate use and continued improvement of technical benchmarks to ensure accurate and judicious interpretation of next-generation DNA sequencing results in the clinical setting.
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.