Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29946432›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2018

Recent advances in the detection of repeat expansions with short-read next-generation sequencing.

Melanie Bahlo, Mark F Bennett, Peter Degorski, Rick M Tankard, Martin B Delatycki, Paul J Lockhart

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Melanie BahloPopulation Health and Immunity Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5132-0774
Mark F BennettPopulation Health and Immunity Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Peter DegorskiPopulation Health and Immunity Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Rick M TankardMathematics and Statistics, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia.
Martin B DelatyckiBruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Paul J LockhartBruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Royal Children's Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUMurdoch University · AUWalter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Short tandem repeats (STRs), also known as microsatellites, are commonly defined as consisting of tandemly repeated nucleotide motifs of 2-6 base pairs in length. STRs appear throughout the human genome, and about 239,000 are documented in the Simple Repeats Track available from the UCSC (University of California, Santa Cruz) genome browser. STRs vary in size, producing highly polymorphic markers commonly used as genetic markers. A small fraction of STRs (about 30 loci) have been associated with human disease whereby one or both alleles exceed an STR-specific threshold in size, leading to disease. Detection of repeat expansions is currently performed with polymerase chain reaction-based assays or with Southern blots for large expansions. The tests are expensive and time-consuming and are not always conclusive, leading to lengthy diagnostic journeys for patients, potentially including missed diagnoses. The advent of whole exome and whole genome sequencing has identified the genetic cause of many genetic disorders; however, analysis pipelines are focused primarily on the detection of short nucleotide variations and short insertions and deletions (indels). Until recently, repeat expansions, with the exception of the smallest expansion (SCA6), were not detectable in next-generation short-read sequencing datasets and would have been ignored in most analyses. In the last two years, four analysis methods with accompanying software (ExpansionHunter, exSTRa, STRetch, and TREDPARSE) have been released. Although a comprehensive comparative analysis of the performance of these methods across all known repeat expansions is still lacking, it is clear that these methods are a valuable addition to any existing analysis pipeline. Here, we detail how to assess short-read data for evidence of expansions, reviewing all four methods and outlining their strengths and weaknesses. Implementation of these methods should lead to increased diagnostic yield of repeat expansion disorders for known STR loci and has the potential to detect novel repeat expansions.

Indexed as

bioinformaticsrepeat expansion disordersshort-read sequencingshort tandem repeats

Identifiers

PMID29946432
PMCPMC6008857
OpenAlexW2808685112

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.