Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29191167›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

Using variant databases for variant prioritization and to detect erroneous genotype-phenotype associations.

Bart J G Broeckx, Luc Peelman, Jimmy H Saunders, Dieter Deforce, Lieven Clement

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Bart J G BroeckxLaboratory of Animal Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium. bart.broeckx@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6742-3911
Luc PeelmanLaboratory of Animal Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Jimmy H SaundersDepartment of Medical Imaging and Orthopedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Dieter DeforceLaboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Lieven ClementDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Faculty of Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 12G9217N
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the search for novel causal mutations, public and/or private variant databases are nearly always used to facilitate the search as they result in a massive reduction of putative variants in one step. Practically, variant filtering is often done by either using all variants from the variant database (called the absence-approach, i.e. it is assumed that disease-causing variants do not reside in variant databases) or by using the subset of variants with an allelic frequency > 1% (called the 1%-approach). We investigate the validity of these two approaches in terms of false negatives (the true disease-causing variant does not pass all filters) and false positives (a harmless mutation passes all filters and is erroneously retained in the list of putative disease-causing variants) and compare it with an novel approach which we named the quantile-based approach. This approach applies variable instead of static frequency thresholds and the calculation of these thresholds is based on prior knowledge of disease prevalence, inheritance models, database size and database characteristics.

resultsBased on real-life data, we demonstrate that the quantile-based approach outperforms the absence-approach in terms of false negatives. At the same time, this quantile-based approach deals more appropriately with the variable allele frequencies of disease-causing alleles in variant databases relative to the 1%-approach and as such allows a better control of the number of false positives. We also introduce an alternative application for variant database usage and the quantile-based approach. If disease-causing variants in variant databases deviate substantially from theoretical expectancies calculated with the quantile-based approach, their association between genotype and phenotype had to be reconsidered in 12 out of 13 cases.

conclusionsWe developed a novel method and demonstrated that this so-called quantile-based approach is a highly suitable method for variant filtering. In addition, the quantile-based approach can also be used for variant flagging. For user friendliness, lookup tables and easy-to-use R calculators are provided.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticGenetic Association StudiesAllelesCongenital AbnormalitiesGene FrequencyGenotypeHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide1000 Genomes project variant databaseAllele frequencydbSNPHapMapVariant databaseVariant filtering

Identifiers

PMID29191167
PMCPMC5710091

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.