Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30563988›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2019

Detection of structural variation using target captured next-generation sequencing data for genetic diagnostic testing.

Wenbo Mu, Bing Li, Sitao Wu, Jefferey Chen, Divya Sain, Dong Xu, Mary Helen Black, Rachid Karam, Katrina Gillespie, Kelly D Farwell Hagman and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wenbo MuAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Bing LiAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Sitao WuAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Jefferey ChenAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Divya SainAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Dong XuAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Mary Helen BlackAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Rachid KaramAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5645-498X
Katrina GillespieAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Kelly D Farwell HagmanAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1173-052X
Lucia GuidugliAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Melissa PronoldAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Aaron ElliottAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA.
Hsiao-Mei LuAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA. hmlu@ambrygen.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7925-4972
Ambry Genetics (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStructural variation (SV) is associated with inherited diseases. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is an efficient method for SV detection because of its high-throughput, low cost, and base-pair resolution. However, due to lack of standard NGS protocols and a limited number of clinical samples with pathogenic SVs, comprehensive standards for SV detection, interpretation, and reporting are to be established.

methodsWe performed SV assessment on 60,000 clinical samples tested with hereditary cancer NGS panels spanning 48 genes. To evaluate NGS results, NGS and orthogonal methods were used separately in a blinded fashion for SV detection in all samples.

resultsA total of 1,037 SVs in coding sequence (CDS) or untranslated regions (UTRs) and 30,847 SVs in introns were detected and validated. Across all variant types, NGS shows 100% sensitivity and 99.9% specificity. Overall, 64% of CDS/UTR SVs were classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic, and five deletions/duplications were reclassified as pathogenic using breakpoint information from NGS.

conclusionThe SVs presented here can be used as a valuable resource for clinical research and diagnostics. The data illustrate NGS as a powerful tool for SV detection. Application of NGS and confirmation technologies in genetic testing ensures delivering accurate and reliable results for diagnosis and patient care.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasmsPseudogenesSensitivity and SpecificityaCGHCNVgenetic diagnostic testingnext-generation sequencingstructural variation

Identifiers

PMID30563988
PMCPMC6752280
OpenAlexW2903601834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.