Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31552176›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2019

Standardization of Sequencing Coverage Depth in NGS: Recommendation for Detection of Clonal and Subclonal Mutations in Cancer Diagnostics.

Anna Petrackova, Michal Vasinek, Lenka Sedlarikova, Tereza Dyskova, Petra Schneiderova, Tomas Novosad, Tomas Papajik, Eva Kriegova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Circulating tumor DNA-based detection of molecular residual disease in isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant cholangiocarcinoma for biomarker-guided therapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Anna PetrackovaDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
Michal VasinekDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Lenka SedlarikovaDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
Tereza DyskovaDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
Petra SchneiderovaDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
Tomas NovosadDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Tomas PapajikDepartment of Hemato-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
Eva KriegovaDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The insufficient standardization of diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) still limits its implementation in clinical practice, with the correct detection of mutations at low variant allele frequencies (VAF) facing particular challenges. We address here the standardization of sequencing coverage depth in order to minimize the probability of false positive and false negative results, the latter being underestimated in clinical NGS. There is currently no consensus on the minimum coverage depth, and so each laboratory has to set its own parameters. To assist laboratories with the determination of the minimum coverage parameters, we provide here a user-friendly coverage calculator. Using the sequencing error only, we recommend a minimum depth of coverage of 1,650 together with a threshold of at least 30 mutated reads for a targeted NGS mutation analysis of ≥3% VAF, based on the binomial probability distribution. Moreover, our calculator also allows adding assay-specific errors occurring during DNA processing and library preparation, thus calculating with an overall error of a specific NGS assay. The estimation of correct coverage depth is recommended as a starting point when assessing thresholds of NGS assay. Our study also points to the need for guidance regarding the minimum technical requirements, which based on our experience should include the limit of detection (LOD), overall NGS assay error, input, source and quality of DNA, coverage depth, number of variant supporting reads, and total number of target reads covering variant region. Further studies are needed to define the minimum technical requirements and its reporting in diagnostic NGS.

Indexed as

coverage depth calculatornext-generation sequencingsequencing errorsmall subclonesTP53 genevariant allele frequency (VAF)

Identifiers

PMID31552176
PMCPMC6738196

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.