ArticleBMC bioinformatics2025
consHLA: a next generation sequencing consensus-based HLA typing workflow.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress on the Major Histocompatibility Complex in Herbivores: Structure, Genetics, and Disease Resistance.Biology · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a pipeline for the systematic search for new HLA alleles in WGS data.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- In vitro diagnostics of drug hypersensitivity reactions.Allergologie select · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHuman Leukocyte Antigens (HLA) play central roles in histocompatibility and immune system functions, including antigen presentation. Accurate typing of Class I and II HLA genes is crucial for transplant tissue matching, characterising autoimmune diseases and informing cancer immunotherapy. Clinical serology and PCR-based testing are the gold standards for HLA typing, but offer only single-field resolution (e.g., HLA-A*11). Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) can achieve higher, three-field resolution (e.g., HLA-A∗11:01:01), although some HLA genes can be challenging to type from sequencing data. With the increasing use of germline WGS, tumour WGS and tumour RNA-seq in cancer patient care, there is an opportunity to combine these three dataset types to improve HLA typing accuracy and confidence, and to identify clinically relevant HLA type changes in tumours. To achieve this, we developed consHLA, a tool that employs this consensus HLA typing approach.
resultsWe obtained matched germline and tumour WGS and RNA-seq data from 86 high-risk paediatric cancer patients (76 brain cancers, 10 leukaemias) from the ZERO Childhood Cancer precision medicine program. We examined 10 HLA typing packages, selecting HLA-HD to develop our consHLA workflow as HLA-HD can employ all three dataset types, analysing both Class I and II HLA genes at three field resolution. Using consHLA we achieved 97.9% concordance with gold standard HLA test results. We observed 90.5% allele consistency across the three sequencing NGS inputs. Typing inconsistencies in at least one of 12 clinically relevant HLA genes were observed in 29 of the brain tumour cases. 32% of these had clinically relevant explanations. To assist clinically, we implemented consHLA as a fully automated workflow producing a clinician-friendly HLA-typing report.
conclusionsTo leverage cancer patient germline and tumour WGS and tumour RNA-seq data we developed an automated workflow, consHLA, that produces consensus typing of HLA genes in a clinically relevant timeframe. This workflow provides higher resolution patient HLA-typing than current gold standard approaches, identifies HLA alterations arising in patient tumours and generates clear, simple reports.
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.