ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Benchmarking of 5 algorithms for high-resolution genotyping of human leukocyte antigen class I genes from blood and tissue samples.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimized multiplex PCR-NGS for comprehensive HLA genotyping in Chinese populations: resolving ambiguities at high resolution.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- A rigorous benchmarking of alignment-based HLA typing algorithms for RNA-seq data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Advancements in HLA Typing Techniques and Their Impact on Transplantation Medicine.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024Review
- Evaluation of HLA typing content of next-generation sequencing datasets from family trios and individuals of arab ethnicity.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Comprehensive HLA Typing from a Current Allele Database Using Next-Generation Sequencing Data.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Toxin exposure and HLA alleles determine serum antibody binding to toxic shock syndrome toxin 1 (TSST-1) ofFrontiers in immunology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Specific alterations in human leukocyte antigen class I (HLA-I) loci are associated with clinical outcomes for immune checkpoint inhibitors, which increase the clinical relevance of accurate high-resolution HLA genotyping in immuno-oncology applications. Numerous algorithms have been developed for high- to full-resolution HLA genotyping by next-generation sequencing (NGS) data; however, Sanger sequencing-based typing (SBT) remains the gold standard. With the increasing use of NGS for clinical oncology, it is important to identify the computational tool with comparable performance as the gold standard. This study aimed to benchmark 5 algorithms against SBT for the high-resolution typing of classical HLA-I genes for targeted NGS data from blood and tissue samples. Methods: Paired white blood cell (WBC), plasma, and tissue deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples derived from 22 cancer patients with known HLA genotypes were sequenced using a panel of all the following exons of classical HLA-I genes: Results: In relation to the WBC, plasma, and tissue samples, all 5 algorithms were highly accurate at low-resolution HLA-I genotyping, but had more varied accuracy at high-resolution HLA-I genotyping, particularly in Conclusions: We found that HLA-HD was an accurate algorithm for the high-resolution genotyping of classical HLA-I genes sequenced by our targeted panel, particularly at a sequencing depth ≥300× for blood and tissue samples.
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.