ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2021
Assessment of Illumina® Human mtDNA Genome assay: workflow evaluation with development of analysis and interpretation guidelines.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Comparisons of aged samples and modern references provide algorithm for mtDNA analysis in challenging material.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mitochondrial point heteroplasmy: insights from deep-sequencing of human replicate samples.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Evaluating the suitability of current mitochondrial DNA interpretation guidelines for multigenerational whole mitochondrial genome comparisons.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
- Human whole mitochondrial genome sequencing and analysis: optimization of the experimental workflow.Croatian medical journal · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is a small but significant part of the human genome, whose applicability potential has gradually increased with the advent of massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technology. Knowledge of the particular workflow, equipment, and reagents used, along with extensive usage of negative controls to monitor all preparation steps constitute the prerequisites for confident reporting of results. In this study, we performed an assessment of Illumina® Human mtDNA Genome assay on MiSeq FGx™ instrument. Through analysis of several types of negative controls, as well as mtDNA positive controls, we established thresholds for data analysis and interpretation, consisting of several components: minimum read depth (220 reads), minimum quality score (41), percentage of minor allele sufficient for analysis (3.0%), percentage of minor allele sufficient for interpretation (6.0%), and percentage of major allele sufficient for homoplasmic variant call (97.0%). Based on these criteria, we defined internal guidelines for analysis and interpretation of mtDNA results obtained by MPS. Our study shows that the whole mtDNA assay on MiSeq FGx™ produces repeatable and reproducible results, independent of the analyst, which are also concordant with Sanger-type sequencing results for mtDNA control region, as well as with MPS results produced by NextSeq®. Overall, established thresholds and interpretation guidelines were successfully applied for the sequencing of complete mitochondrial genomes from high-quality samples. The underlying principles and proposed methodology on the definition of internal laboratory guidelines for analysis and interpretation of MPS results may be applicable to similar MPS workflows, e.g. targeting good-quality samples in forensic genetics and molecular diagnostics.
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.