Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37161318›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2023

Benchmark of tools for in silico prediction of MHC class I and class II genotypes from NGS data.

Arne Claeys, Peter Merseburger, Jasper Staut, Kathleen Marchal, Jimmy Van den Eynden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. FuFiHLA: A tool for Full-Field HLA typing from long reads data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arne ClaeysDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Peter MerseburgerDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jasper StautDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kathleen MarchalCancer Research Institute Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Jimmy Van den EyndenDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. jimmy.vandeneynden@ugent.be.
Cancer Research Institute Ghent · BEGhent University · BEUniversity College Ghent · BE

Funding

Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGent BOF.STG.2019.0073.01Kom op tegen Kanker STI.VLK.2022.0013.01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) genes are a group of highly polymorphic genes that are located in the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) region on chromosome 6. The HLA genotype affects the presentability of tumour antigens to the immune system. While knowledge of these genotypes is of utmost importance to study differences in immune responses between cancer patients, gold standard, PCR-derived genotypes are rarely available in large Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) datasets. Therefore, a variety of methods for in silico NGS-based HLA genotyping have been developed, bypassing the need to determine these genotypes with separate experiments. However, there is currently no consensus on the best performing tool.

resultsWe evaluated 13 MHC class I and/or class II HLA callers that are currently available for free academic use and run on either Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) or RNA sequencing data. Computational resource requirements were highly variable between these tools. Three orthogonal approaches were used to evaluate the accuracy on several large publicly available datasets: a direct benchmark using PCR-derived gold standard HLA calls, a correlation analysis with population-based allele frequencies and an analysis of the concordance between the different tools. The highest MHC-I calling accuracies were found for Optitype (98.0%) and arcasHLA (99.4%) on WES and RNA sequencing data respectively, while for MHC-II HLA-HD was the most accurate tool for both data types (96.2% and 99.4% on WES and RNA data respectively).

conclusionThe optimal strategy for HLA genotyping from NGS data depends on the availability of either WES or RNA data, the size of the dataset and the available computational resources. If sufficient resources are available, we recommend Optitype and HLA-HD for MHC-I and MHC-II genotype calling respectively.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingHLA AntigensGenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMajor Histocompatibility ComplexHLA AntigensBenchmarkHLA genotypingTumour-immune interaction

Identifiers

PMID37161318
PMCPMC10170851
OpenAlexW4376133538

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.