ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2016
Pedigree based DNA sequencing pipeline for germline genomes of cancer families.
Article in Hereditary cancer in clinical practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting Algorithms, Tools, and Applications for Sequence and Phylogenetic Analyses in the NGS-Based Omics Era.Biochemical genetics · 2026Review
- Transformative Applications and Innovations in Next-Generation Sequencing Data Analysis.Journal of applied genetics · 2026Review
- Search for germline gene variants in colorectal cancer families presenting with multiple primary colorectal cancers.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Variant ranking pipeline for complex familial disorders.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Chromosomal localization of mutated genes in non-syndromic familial thyroid cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Bioinformatic Analyzes of the Association Between Upregulated Expression ofFrontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Familial Cancer Variant Prioritization Pipeline version 2 (FCVPPv2) applied to a papillary thyroid cancer family.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the course of our whole-genome sequencing efforts, we have developed a pipeline for analyzing germline genomes from Mendelian types of cancer pedigrees (familial cancer variant prioritization pipeline, FCVPP).
resultsThe variant calling step distinguishes two types of genomic variants: single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels, which undergo technical quality control. Mendelian types of variants are assumed to be rare and variants with frequencies higher that 0.1 % are screened out using human 1000 Genomes (Phase 3) and non-TCGA ExAC population data. Segregation in the pedigree allows variants to be present in affected family members and not in old, unaffected ones. The effectiveness of variant segregation depends on the number and relatedness of the family members: if over 5 third-degree (or more distant) relatives are available, the experience has shown that the number of likely variants is reduced from many hundreds to a few tens. These are then subjected to bioinformatics analysis, starting with the combined annotation dependent depletion (CADD) tool, which predicts the likelihood of the variant being deleterious. Different sets of individual tools are used for further evaluation of the deleteriousness of coding variants, 5' and 3' untranslated regions (UTRs), and intergenic variants. CONLUSIONS: The likelihood of success of the present genomic pipeline in finding novel high- or medium-penetrant genes depends on many steps but first and foremost, the pedigree needs to be reasonably large and the assignments and diagnoses among the members need to be correct.
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.