Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34465341›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2021

Detecting copy number variation in next generation sequencing data from diagnostic gene panels.

Ashish Kumar Singh, Maren Fridtjofsen Olsen, Liss Anne Solberg Lavik, Trine Vold, Finn Drabløs, Wenche Sjursen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Genes · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genome-wide association testing beyond SNPs.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Ashish Kumar SinghDepartment of Medical Genetics, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. ashish.kumar.singh3@stolav.no.ORCID 0000-0002-3191-7677
Maren Fridtjofsen OlsenDepartment of Medical Genetics, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Liss Anne Solberg LavikDepartment of Medical Genetics, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Trine VoldDepartment of Medical Genetics, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Finn DrabløsDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Wenche SjursenDepartment of Medical Genetics, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection of copy number variation (CNV) in genes associated with disease is important in genetic diagnostics, and next generation sequencing (NGS) technology provides data that can be used for CNV detection. However, CNV detection based on NGS data is in general not often used in diagnostic labs as the data analysis is challenging, especially with data from targeted gene panels. Wet lab methods like MLPA (MRC Holland) are widely used, but are expensive, time consuming and have gene-specific limitations. Our aim has been to develop a bioinformatic tool for CNV detection from NGS data in medical genetic diagnostic samples.

resultsOur computational pipeline for detection of CNVs in NGS data from targeted gene panels utilizes coverage depth of the captured regions and calculates a copy number ratio score for each region. This is computed by comparing the mean coverage of the sample with the mean coverage of the same region in other samples, defined as a pool. The pipeline selects pools for comparison dynamically from previously sequenced samples, using the pool with an average coverage depth that is nearest to the one of the samples. A sliding window-based approach is used to analyze each region, where length of sliding window and sliding distance can be chosen dynamically to increase or decrease the resolution. This helps in detecting CNVs in small or partial exons. With this pipeline we have correctly identified the CNVs in 36 positive control samples, with sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 91%. We have detected whole gene level deletion/duplication, single/multi exonic level deletion/duplication, partial exonic deletion and mosaic deletion. Since its implementation in mid-2018 it has proven its diagnostic value with more than 45 CNV findings in routine tests.

conclusionsWith this pipeline as part of our diagnostic practices it is now possible to detect partial, single or multi-exonic, and intragenic CNVs in all genes in our target panel. This has helped our diagnostic lab to expand the portfolio of genes where we offer CNV detection, which previously was limited by the availability of MLPA kits.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingComputational BiologyHumansCopy number variation (CNV)Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA)Next generation sequencing (NGS)Sliding windowStructural variant

Identifiers

PMID34465341
PMCPMC8406611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.