Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30350345›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2018

Bioinformatic data processing pipelines in support of next-generation sequencing-based HIV drug resistance testing: the Winnipeg Consensus.

Hezhao Ji, Eric Enns, Chanson J Brumme, Neil Parkin, Mark Howison, Emma R Lee, Rupert Capina, Eric Marinier, Santiago Avila-Rios, Paul Sandstrom and 5 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

15 authors.

Hezhao JiNational HIV and Retrovirology Laboratories at JC Wilt Infectious Diseases Research Centre, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5451-6294
Eric EnnsBioinformatics Core at the National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Chanson J BrummeBritish Columbia Centre for Excellence, HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Neil ParkinData First Consulting Inc., Belmont, CA, USA.
Mark HowisonWatson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Emma R LeeNational HIV and Retrovirology Laboratories at JC Wilt Infectious Diseases Research Centre, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Rupert CapinaNational HIV and Retrovirology Laboratories at JC Wilt Infectious Diseases Research Centre, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Eric MarinierBioinformatics Core at the National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Santiago Avila-RiosCentre for Research in Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Respiratory Diseases, Mexico City, Mexico.
Paul SandstromNational HIV and Retrovirology Laboratories at JC Wilt Infectious Diseases Research Centre, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Gary Van DomselaarDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Richard HarriganDivision of AIDS, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Roger ParedesIrsiCaixa AIDS Research Institute, Badalona, Catalonia, Spain.
Rami KantorDivision of Infectious Diseases, Brown University Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, USA.
Marc Noguera-JulianIrsiCaixa AIDS Research Institute, Badalona, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6194-1395

Funding

Translational ScienceP30AI042853 · NIAID · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI LARRY K BROWN · 1998 to 2026
$51.7M
Optimizing HIV Treatment Monitoring under Resource ConstraintsR01AI108441 · NIAID · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI HOGAN, JOSEPH W, KANTOR, RAMI · 2015 to 2019
$3.5M
Canadian Institute of Health ResearchNIAID NIH HHS P30 AI042853NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI108441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNext-generation sequencing (NGS) has several advantages over conventional Sanger sequencing for HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) genotyping, including detection and quantitation of low-abundance variants bearing drug resistance mutations (DRMs). However, the high HIV genomic diversity, unprecedented large volume of data, complexity of analysis and potential for error pose significant challenges for data processing. Several NGS analysis pipelines have been developed and used in HIVDR research; however, the absence of uniformity in data processing strategies results in lack of consistency and comparability of outputs from different pipelines. To fill this gap, an international symposium on bioinformatic strategies for NGS-based HIVDR testing was held in February 2018 in Winnipeg, Canada, convening laboratory scientists, bioinformaticians and clinicians involved in four recently developed, publicly available NGS HIVDR pipelines. The goal of this symposium was to establish a consensus on effective bioinformatic strategies for NGS data management and its use for HIVDR reporting. DISCUSSION: Essential functionalities of an NGS HIVDR pipeline were divided into five analytic blocks: (1) NGS read quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA); (2) NGS read alignment and reference mapping; (3) HIV variant calling and variant QC; (4) NGS HIVDR reporting; and (5) extended data applications and additional considerations for data management. The consensuses reached among the participants on all major aspects of these blocks are summarized here. They encompass not only recommended data management and analysis strategies, but also detailed bioinformatic approaches that help ensure accuracy of the derived HIVDR analysis outputs for both research and potential clinical use.

conclusionsWhile NGS is being adopted more broadly in HIVDR testing laboratories, data processing is often a bottleneck hindering its generalized application. The proposed standardization of NGS read QC/QA, read alignment and reference mapping, variant calling and QC, HIVDR reporting and relevant data management strategies in this "Winnipeg Consensus" may serve as a starting guideline for NGS HIVDR data processing that informs the refinement of existing pipelines and those yet to be developed. Moreover, the bioinformatic strategies presented here may apply more broadly to NGS data analysis of microbes harbouring significant genomic diversity.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDrug Resistance, ViralHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHIVHumansbioinformaticsguidelineHIV drug resistance testnext-generation sequencingpipelineWinnipeg Consensus

Identifiers

PMID30350345
PMCPMC6198166

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.