Bioinformatic data processing pipelines in support of next‐generation sequencing‐based <scp>HIV</scp> drug resistance testing: the Winnipeg Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has several advantages over conventional Sanger sequencing for HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) genotyping, including detection and quantitation of low-abundance variants bearing drug resistance mutations (DRMs). However, the high HIV genomic diversity, unprecedented large volume of data, complexity of analysis and potential for error pose significant challenges for data processing. Several NGS analysis pipelines have been developed and used in HIVDR research; however, the absence of uniformity in data processing strategies results in lack of consistency and comparability of outputs from different pipelines. To fill this gap, an international symposium on bioinformatic strategies for NGS-based HIVDR testing was held in February 2018 in Winnipeg, Canada, convening laboratory scientists, bioinformaticians and clinicians involved in four recently developed, publicly available NGS HIVDR pipelines. The goal of this symposium was to establish a consensus on effective bioinformatic strategies for NGS data management and its use for HIVDR reporting. DISCUSSION: Essential functionalities of an NGS HIVDR pipeline were divided into five analytic blocks: (1) NGS read quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA); (2) NGS read alignment and reference mapping; (3) HIV variant calling and variant QC; (4) NGS HIVDR reporting; and (5) extended data applications and additional considerations for data management. The consensuses reached among the participants on all major aspects of these blocks are summarized here. They encompass not only recommended data management and analysis strategies, but also detailed bioinformatic approaches that help ensure accuracy of the derived HIVDR analysis outputs for both research and potential clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: While NGS is being adopted more broadly in HIVDR testing laboratories, data processing is often a bottleneck hindering its generalized application. The proposed standardization of NGS read QC/QA, read alignment and reference mapping, variant calling and QC, HIVDR reporting and relevant data management strategies in this "Winnipeg Consensus" may serve as a starting guideline for NGS HIVDR data processing that informs the refinement of existing pipelines and those yet to be developed. Moreover, the bioinformatic strategies presented here may apply more broadly to NGS data analysis of microbes harbouring significant genomic diversity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".