Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31985172›Full record

ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2020

Genome sequencing in cytogenetics: Comparison of short-read and linked-read approaches for germline structural variant detection and characterization.

Kévin Uguen, Claire Jubin, Yannis Duffourd, Claire Bardel, Valérie Malan, Jean-Michel Dupont, Laila El Khattabi, Nicolas Chatron, Antonio Vitobello, Pierre-Antoine Rollat-Farnier and 21 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

31 authors.

Kévin Uguen *Service de Génétique Médicale, CHRU de Brest, Brest, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6744-2837
Claire Jubin *Centre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Yannis DuffourdUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.
Claire BardelHCL, Cellule bioinformatique de la plateforme NGS du CHU Lyon, BRON Cedex, France.
Valérie MalanService de Cytogénétique, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, APHP, Paris, France.
Jean-Michel DupontInstitut Cochin, INSERM U1016, Université Paris Descartes, Faculté de Médecine, APHP, HUPC, site Cochin, Laboratoire de Cytogénétique, Paris, France.
Laila El KhattabiInstitut Cochin, INSERM U1016, Université Paris Descartes, Faculté de Médecine, APHP, HUPC, site Cochin, Laboratoire de Cytogénétique, Paris, France.
Nicolas ChatronHCL, Service de Génétique, BRON Cedex, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0538-0981
Antonio VitobelloUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.
Pierre-Antoine Rollat-FarnierHCL, Cellule bioinformatique de la plateforme NGS du CHU Lyon, BRON Cedex, France.
Céline BaulardCentre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Marc LelorchService de Cytogénétique, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, APHP, Paris, France.
Aurélie LeducCentre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Emilie TisserantUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.
Frédéric Tran Mau-ThemUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.
Vincent DanjeanUniv. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG, Grenoble, France.
Marc DelepineCentre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Marianne TillHCL, Service de Génétique, BRON Cedex, France.
Vincent MeyerCentre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Stanislas LyonnetFédération de Génétique et Institut Imagine, UMR-1163, Université de Paris, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, APHP Paris, France.
Anne-Laure Mosca-BoidronUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.
Julien ThevenonCentre de génétique, Hôpital Couple-Enfant, CHU Grenoble Alpes, La Tronche, Grenoble, France.
Laurence FaivreUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9770-444X
Christel Thauvin-RobinetUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.
Caroline Schluth-BolardHCL, Service de Génétique, BRON Cedex, France.
Anne BolandCentre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Robert OlasoCentre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Patrick CallierUMR1231 GAD, Inserm - Université Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France.
Serge RomanaService de Cytogénétique, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, APHP, Paris, France.
Jean-François Deleuze *Centre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine (CNRGH), CEA, Evry, France.
Damien Sanlaville *HCL, Service de Génétique, BRON Cedex, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructural variants (SVs) include copy number variants (CNVs) and apparently balanced chromosomal rearrangements (ABCRs). Genome sequencing (GS) enables SV detection at base-pair resolution, but the use of short-read sequencing is limited by repetitive sequences, and long-read approaches are not yet validated for diagnosis. Recently, 10X Genomics proposed Chromium, a technology providing linked-reads to reconstruct long DNA fragments and which could represent a good alternative. No study has compared short-read to linked-read technologies to detect SVs in a constitutional diagnostic setting yet. The aim of this work was to determine whether the 10X Genomics technology enables better detection and comprehension of SVs than short-read WGS.

methodsWe included 13 patients carrying various SVs. Whole genome analyses were performed using paired-end HiSeq X sequencing with (linked-read strategy) or without (short-read strategy) Chromium library preparation. Two different bioinformatic pipelines were used: Variants are called using BreakDancer for short-read strategy and LongRanger for long-read strategy. Variant interpretations were first blinded.

resultsThe short-read strategy allowed diagnosis of known SV in 10/13 patients. After unblinding, the linked-read strategy identified 10/13 SVs, including one (patient 7) missed by the short-read strategy.

conclusionIn conclusion, regarding the results of this study, 10X Genomics solution did not improve the detection and characterization of SV.

Indexed as

Genomic Structural VariationAbnormalities, MultipleChromosome DisordersCytogeneticsGenetic TestingGerm-Line MutationHumansIntellectual DisabilityWhole Genome Sequencing10X Genomics: Illuminabioinformaticsgenome sequencingstructural variants

Identifiers

PMID31985172
PMCPMC7057128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.