ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
The case for caution in the application of whole-exome sequencing data for immune repertoire analysis.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The analysis of the adaptive immune receptor repertoire is critical in disease research. While specialized immune repertoire sequencing (IR-seq) is the dedicated method for receptor repertoire profiling, the abundance of existing WES data has led to its frequent repurposing for repertoire analysis; however, its reliability for this application remains poorly evaluated. To address this, we first assessed the VDJ gene coverage by commercial WES probes. Next, using a multi-omics dataset (matched IR-seq, RNA-seq, WES), we compared repertoire inferences derived from WES and RNA-seq results against IR-seq. This comparison was followed by an analysis correlating WES probe matching efficiency with the failure to identify V/J gene segments. We found that WES probes miss a substantial fraction of individual V, D, and J genes and provide uneven coverage across these genes. WES consistently showed significantly lower performance than RNA-seq, detecting fewer clonotypes and yielding greater abundance deviation. The underestimation of clonotype richness in WES was confirmed through external validation using multiple public datasets. Our results illustrate the inherent limitations of WES for repertoire profiling, serving as a cautionary note for the appropriate interpretation of exome-derived repertoire information in research.
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.