ArticleGenetics and molecular biology2020
Methodological differences can affect sequencing depth with a possible impact on the accuracy of genetic diagnosis.
Article in Genetics and molecular biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Profiling ofCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic yield of exome and genome sequencing after non-diagnostic multi-gene panels in patients with single-system diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For a better interpretation of variants, evidence-based databases, such as ClinVar, compile data on the presumed relationships between variants and phenotypes. In this study, we aimed to analyze the pattern of sequencing depth in variants from whole-exome sequencing data in the 1000 Genomes project phase 3, focusing on the variants present in the ClinVar database that were predicted to affect protein-coding regions. We demonstrate that the distribution of the sequencing depth varies across different sequencing centers (pair-wise comparison, p < 0.001). Most importantly, we found that the distribution pattern of sequencing depth is specific to each facility, making it possible to correctly assign 96.9% of the samples to their sequencing center. Thus, indicating the presence of a systematic bias, related to the methods used in the different facilities, which generates significant variations in breadth and depth in whole-exome sequencing data in clinically relevant regions. Our results show that methodological differences, leading to significant heterogeneity in sequencing depth, may potentially influence the accuracy of genetic diagnosis. Furthermore, our findings highlight how it is still challenging to integrate results from different sequencing centers, which may also have an impact on genomic research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.