Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32627054›Full record

ArticleHuman genetics2021

Interplay between probe design and test performance: overlap between genomic regions of interest, capture regions and high quality reference calls influence performance of WES-based assays.

Erinija Pranckeviciene, Lemuel Racacho, Mahdi Ghani, Landry Nfonsam, Ryan Potter, Elizabeth Sinclair-Bourque, Gabrielle Mettler, Amanda Smith, Lucas Bronicki, Lijia Huang and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Human genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erinija PranckevicieneDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada. erinija.pranckeviciene@mf.vu.lt.
Lemuel RacachoDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Mahdi GhaniDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Landry NfonsamDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ryan PotterDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Elizabeth Sinclair-BourqueDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Gabrielle MettlerDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Amanda SmithDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lucas BronickiDepartment of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lijia Huang *Department of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Olga Jarinova *Department of Genetics, CHEO, Ottawa, ON, Canada. ojarinova@cheo.on.ca.
Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole exome sequencing (WES)-based assays undergo rigorous validation before being implemented in diagnostic laboratories. This validation process generates experimental evidence that allows laboratories to predict the performance of the intended assay. The NA12878 Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) HapMap reference sample is commonly used for validation in diagnostic laboratories. We investigated what data points should be taken into consideration when validating WES-based assays using the GIAB reference in a diagnostic setting. We delineate specific factors that require special consideration and identify OMIM genes associated with diseases that may 'bypass' validation. Four replicates of the NA12878 sample were sequenced at the CHEO Genetics Diagnostic Laboratory on a NextSeq 500; the data were analyzed using the bcbio_nexgen v1.1.2 pipeline. The hap.py validation engine, Real Time Genomics vcfeval tool, and high confidence (HC) variant calls in HC regions available for the GIAB sample were used to validate the obtained variant calls. The same validation process was then used to evaluate variant calls obtained for the same sample by two other clinical diagnostic laboratories. We showed that variant calls in NA12878 can be confidently measured only in the regions that intersect between the GIAB HC regions and the target regions of exome capture. Of the 4139 (as of October 2019) OMIM genes associated with a phenotype and having a known molecular basis of disease, 84 were fully outside of the GIAB HC regions and many of the remaining OMIM genes were only partially covered by the HC regions. A significant proportion of variants identified in the NA12878 sample outside of the HC regions have unknown (UNK) status due to the absence of HC reference alleles. Verification of such calls is possible either by an alternative truth set or by orthogonal testing. Similarly, many variants outside of exome capture regions, if not accounted for, will be deemed false negatives due to insufficient probe coverage. Our results demonstrate the importance of the intersection between genomic regions of interest, capture regions, and the high confidence regions. If not considered, false and ambiguous variant calls could have a negative impact on diagnostic accuracy of the intended WES-based diagnostic assay and increase the need for confirmatory testing. To enable laboratories to identify 'problematic' regions and optimize validation efforts, we have made our VCF and BED files available in UCSC Genome Browser: NA12878 WES Benchmark. Relevant genes and genome annotations are evolving, we implemented a general purpose algorithm to cross-reference OMIM genes with the genomic regions of interest that can be applied to capture genes/regions outside HC regions (see repository of data material section).

Indexed as

AllelesExomeExome SequencingGenetic VariationGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansMolecular Sequence Annotation

Identifiers

PMID32627054
OpenAlexW3039215027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.