ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
A rigorous benchmarking of alignment-based HLA typing algorithms for RNA-seq data.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate identification of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles is essential for various clinical and research applications, such as transplant matching and drug sensitivities. Recent advances in RNA-seq technology have made it possible to impute HLA types from sequencing data, spurring the development of a large number of computational HLA typing tools. However, the relative performance of these tools is unknown, limiting the ability for clinical and biomedical research to make informed choices regarding which tools to use. Here we report the study design of a comprehensive benchmarking of the performance of 12 HLA callers across 682 RNA-seq samples from 8 datasets with molecularly defined gold standard at 5 loci, HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1. For each HLA typing tool, we will comprehensively assess their accuracy, compare default with optimized parameters, and examine for discrepancies in accuracy at the allele and loci levels. We will also evaluate the computational expense of each HLA caller measured in terms of CPU time and RAM. We also plan to evaluate the influence of read length over the HLA region on accuracy for each tool. Most notably, we will examine the performance of HLA callers across European and African groups, to determine discrepancies in accuracy associated with ancestry. We hypothesize that RNA-Seq HLA callers are capable of returning high-quality results, but the tools that offer a good balance between accuracy and computational expensiveness for all ancestry groups are yet to be developed. We believe that our study will provide clinicians and researchers with clear guidance to inform their selection of an appropriate HLA caller.
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.