Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28152038›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Exome sequencing covers >98% of mutations identified on targeted next generation sequencing panels.

Holly LaDuca, Kelly D Farwell, Huy Vuong, Hsiao-Mei Lu, Wenbo Mu, Layla Shahmirzadi, Sha Tang, Jefferey Chen, Shruti Bhide, Elizabeth C Chao

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Holly LaDucaDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Kelly D FarwellDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Huy VuongDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Hsiao-Mei LuDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Wenbo MuDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Layla ShahmirzadiDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Sha TangDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Jefferey ChenDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Shruti BhideDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America.
Elizabeth C ChaoDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Genetics and Genomic Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America.
Ambry Genetics (United States) · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the expanded availability of next generation sequencing (NGS)-based clinical genetic tests, clinicians seeking to test patients with Mendelian diseases must weigh the superior coverage of targeted gene panels with the greater number of genes included in whole exome sequencing (WES) when considering their first-tier testing approach. Here, we use an in silico analysis to predict the analytic sensitivity of WES using pathogenic variants identified on targeted NGS panels as a reference.

methodsCorresponding nucleotide positions for 1533 different alterations classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic identified on targeted NGS multi-gene panel tests in our laboratory were interrogated in data from 100 randomly-selected clinical WES samples to quantify the sequence coverage at each position. Pathogenic variants represented 91 genes implicated in hereditary cancer, X-linked intellectual disability, primary ciliary dyskinesia, Marfan syndrome/aortic aneurysms, cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias.

resultsWhen assessing coverage among 100 individual WES samples for each pathogenic variant (153,300 individual assessments), 99.7% (n = 152,798) would likely have been detected on WES. All pathogenic variants had at least some coverage on exome sequencing, with a total of 97.3% (n = 1491) detectable across all 100 individuals. For the remaining 42 pathogenic variants, the number of WES samples with adequate coverage ranged from 35 to 99. Factors such as location in GC-rich, repetitive, or homologous regions likely explain why some of these alterations were not detected across all samples. To validate study findings, a similar analysis was performed against coverage data from 60,706 exomes available through the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). Results from this validation confirmed that 98.6% (91,743,296/93,062,298) of pathogenic variants demonstrated adequate depth for detection.

conclusionsResults from this in silico analysis suggest that exome sequencing may achieve a diagnostic yield similar to panel-based testing for Mendelian diseases.

Indexed as

ExomeMutationComputer SimulationDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleGenetic Diseases, InbornGenetic TestingGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID28152038
PMCPMC5289469
OpenAlexW2585057233

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.