MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042594353 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023221

Design Considerations for Massively Parallel Sequencing Studies of Complex Human Disease

2011· article· en· W2042594353 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bing Feng, Sean V. Tavtigian, Melissa C. Southey, David E. Goldgar

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCancer Council VictoriaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMassive parallel sequencingExome sequencingBiologyGeneticsPedigree chartComputational biologyMendelian inheritanceConcordanceExomeLocus (genetics)DNA sequencingGenePhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Massively Parallel Sequencing (MPS) allows sequencing of entire exomes and genomes to now be done at reasonable cost, and its utility for identifying genes responsible for rare Mendelian disorders has been demonstrated. However, for a complex disease, study designs need to accommodate substantial degrees of locus, allelic, and phenotypic heterogeneity, as well as complex relationships between genotype and phenotype. Such considerations include careful selection of samples for sequencing and a well-developed strategy for identifying the few "true" disease susceptibility genes from among the many irrelevant genes that will be found to harbor rare variants. To examine these issues we have performed simulation-based analyses in order to compare several strategies for MPS sequencing in complex disease. Factors examined include genetic architecture, sample size, number and relationship of individuals selected for sequencing, and a variety of filters based on variant type, multiple observations of genes and concordance of genetic variants within pedigrees. A two-stage design was assumed where genes from the MPS analysis of high-risk families are evaluated in a secondary screening phase of a larger set of probands with more modest family histories. Designs were evaluated using a cost function that assumes the cost of sequencing the whole exome is 400 times that of sequencing a single candidate gene. Results indicate that while requiring variants to be identified in multiple pedigrees and/or in multiple individuals in the same pedigree are effective strategies for reducing false positives, there is a danger of over-filtering so that most true susceptibility genes are missed. In most cases, sequencing more than two individuals per pedigree results in reduced power without any benefit in terms of reduced overall cost. Further, our results suggest that although no single strategy is optimal, simulations can provide important guidelines for study design.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.390
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.077 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207