Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35215779›Full record

ArticleViruses2022

Assessment of Inter-Laboratory Differences in SARS-CoV-2 Consensus Genome Assemblies between Public Health Laboratories in Australia.

Charles S P Foster, Sacha Stelzer-Braid, Ira W Deveson, Rowena A Bull, Malinna Yeang, Jane-Phan Au, Mariana Ruiz Silva, Sebastiaan J van Hal, Rebecca J Rockett, Vitali Sintchenko and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors.

Charles S P FosterVirology Research Laboratory, Serology and Virology Division (SAViD), NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6700-3746
Sacha Stelzer-BraidVirology Research Laboratory, Serology and Virology Division (SAViD), NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.
Ira W DevesonKinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3861-0472
Rowena A BullSchool of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9844-3744
Malinna YeangVirology Research Laboratory, Serology and Virology Division (SAViD), NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.
Jane-Phan AuVirology Research Laboratory, Serology and Virology Division (SAViD), NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.
Mariana Ruiz SilvaVirology Research Laboratory, Serology and Virology Division (SAViD), NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.
Sebastiaan J van HalDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, NSW Health Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.
Rebecca J RockettSydney Infectious Diseases, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Vitali SintchenkoSydney Infectious Diseases, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Ki Wook KimVirology Research Laboratory, Serology and Virology Division (SAViD), NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9579-6408
William D RawlinsonVirology Research Laboratory, Serology and Virology Division (SAViD), NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0988-7827

Funding

Cancer Institute NSW Early Career Fellowship 2018/ECF013Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship 3-PDF-2020-940-A-NMedical Research Future Fund APP1173594UNSW COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Initiative No relevant number
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole-genome sequencing of viral isolates is critical for informing transmission patterns and for the ongoing evolution of pathogens, especially during a pandemic. However, when genomes have low variability in the early stages of a pandemic, the impact of technical and/or sequencing errors increases. We quantitatively assessed inter-laboratory differences in consensus genome assemblies of 72 matched SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens sequenced at different laboratories in Sydney, Australia. Raw sequence data were assembled using two different bioinformatics pipelines in parallel, and resulting consensus genomes were compared to detect laboratory-specific differences. Matched genome sequences were predominantly concordant, with a median pairwise identity of 99.997%. Identified differences were predominantly driven by ambiguous site content. Ignoring these produced differences in only 2.3% (5/216) of pairwise comparisons, each differing by a single nucleotide. Matched samples were assigned the same Pango lineage in 98.2% (212/216) of pairwise comparisons, and were mostly assigned to the same phylogenetic clade. However, epidemiological inference based only on single nucleotide variant distances may lead to significant differences in the number of defined clusters if variant allele frequency thresholds for consensus genome generation differ between laboratories. These results underscore the need for a unified, best-practices approach to bioinformatics between laboratories working on a common outbreak problem.

Indexed as

ConsensusGenome, ViralPublic HealthAustraliaComputational BiologyHumansLaboratoriesPhylogenySARS-CoV-2Whole Genome SequencingbioinformaticsPango lineageSARS-CoV-2whole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID35215779
PMCPMC8875182

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.