ArticleScientific reports2020
A customized scaffolds approach for the detection and phasing of complex variants by next-generation sequencing.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Gauchian genotyping of GBA1 variants reliable?Communications biology · 2025Article
- Consensus Guidance for Genetic Counseling in GBA1 Variants: A Focus on Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2024Review
- Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis ofFrontiers in genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is widely used in genetic testing for the highly sensitive detection of single nucleotide changes and small insertions or deletions. However, detection and phasing of structural variants, especially in repetitive or homologous regions, can be problematic due to uneven read coverage or genome reference bias, resulting in false calls. To circumvent this challenge, a computational approach utilizing customized scaffolds as supplementary reference sequences for read alignment was developed, and its effectiveness demonstrated with two CBS gene variants: NM_000071.2:c.833T>C and NM_000071.2:c.[833T>C; 844_845ins68]. Variant c.833T>C is a known causative mutation for homocystinuria, but is not pathogenic when in cis with the insertion, c.844_845ins68, because of alternative splicing. Using simulated reads, the custom scaffolds method resolved all possible combinations with 100% accuracy and, based on > 60,000 clinical specimens, exceeded the performance of current approaches that only align reads to GRCh37/hg19 for the detection of c.833T>C alone or in cis with c.844_845ins68. Furthermore, analysis of two 1000 Genomes Project trios revealed that the c.[833T>C; 844_845ins68] complex variant had previously been undetected in these datasets, likely due to the alignment method used. This approach can be configured for existing workflows to detect other challenging and potentially underrepresented variants, thereby augmenting accurate variant calling in clinical NGS testing.
Indexed as
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.