Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28852425›Full record

ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2017

Evaluation of three read-depth based CNV detection tools using whole-exome sequencing data.

Ruen Yao, Cheng Zhang, Tingting Yu, Niu Li, Xuyun Hu, Xiumin Wang, Jian Wang, Yiping Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
–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

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genetic aspects of ataxias in a cohort of Turkish patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

6 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

8 authors.

Ruen YaoDepartment of Medical Genetics and Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127 China.
Cheng ZhangBoston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115 USA.
Tingting YuDepartment of Medical Genetics and Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127 China.
Niu LiDepartment of Medical Genetics and Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127 China.
Xuyun HuDepartment of Medical Genetics and Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127 China.
Xiumin WangDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127 China.
Jian WangDepartment of Medical Genetics and Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127 China.
Yiping ShenDepartment of Medical Genetics and Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127 China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole exome sequencing (WES) has been widely accepted as a robust and cost-effective approach for clinical genetic testing of small sequence variants. Detection of copy number variants (CNV) within WES data have become possible through the development of various algorithms and software programs that utilize read-depth as the main information. The aim of this study was to evaluate three commonly used, WES read-depth based CNV detection programs using high-resolution chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) as a standard.

methodsPaired CMA and WES data were acquired for 45 samples. A total of 219 CNVs (size ranged from 2.3 kb - 35 mb) identified on three CMA platforms (Affymetrix, Agilent and Illumina) were used as standards. CNVs were called from WES data using XHMM, CoNIFER, and CNVnator with modified settings.

resultsAll three software packages detected an elevated proportion of small variants (< 20 kb) compared to CMA. XHMM and CoNIFER had poor detection sensitivity (22.2 and 14.6%), which correlated with the number of capturing probes involved. CNVnator detected most variants and had better sensitivity (87.7%); however, suffered from an overwhelming detection of small CNVs below 20 kb, which required further confirmation. Size estimation of variants was exaggerated by CNVnator and understated by XHMM and CoNIFER.

conclusionLow concordances of CNV, detected by three different read-depth based programs, indicate the immature status of WES-based CNV detection. Low sensitivity and uncertain specificity of WES-based CNV detection in comparison with CMA based CNV detection suggests that CMA will continue to play an important role in detecting clinical grade CNV in the NGS era, which is largely based on WES.

Indexed as

Clinical sequencingCopy number variantsStructural variationWhole exome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID28852425
PMCPMC5569469

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.