ArticleHuman mutation2018
Robust identification of deletions in exome and genome sequence data based on clustering of Mendelian errors.
Article in Human mutation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uniparental Disomy Reveals Hidden Genetic Causes of Congenital Heart Disease.Research square · 2026Article
- Analysis of the Whole-Genome Sequences from anGenes · 2022Article
- Mendelian Inconsistent Signatures from 1314 Ancestrally Diverse Family Trios Distinguish Biological Variation from Sequencing Error.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Multiple tools have been developed to identify copy number variants (CNVs) from whole exome (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) data. Current tools such as XHMM for WES and CNVnator for WGS identify CNVs based on changes in read depth. For WGS, other methods to identify CNVs include utilizing discordant read pairs and split reads and genome-wide local assembly with tools such as Lumpy and SvABA, respectively. Here, we introduce a new method to identify deletion CNVs from WES and WGS trio data based on the clustering of Mendelian errors (MEs). Using our Mendelian Error Method (MEM), we identified 127 deletions (inherited and de novo) in 2,601 WES trios from the Pediatric Cardiac Genomics Consortium, with a validation rate of 88% by digital droplet PCR. MEM identified additional de novo deletions compared with XHMM, and a significant enrichment of 15q11.2 deletions compared with controls. In addition, MEM identified eight cases of uniparental disomy, sample switches, and DNA contamination. We applied MEM to WGS data from the Genome In A Bottle Ashkenazi trio and identified deletions with 97% specificity. MEM provides a robust, computationally inexpensive method for identifying deletions, and an orthogonal approach for verifying deletions called by other tools.
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.