MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307603329 · doi:10.1101/2022.10.25.513646

Design and performance of a long-read sequencing panel for pharmacogenomics

2022· preprint· en· W4307603329 on OpenAlexaff
Maaike van der Lee, Loes Busscher, Roberta Menafra, Qinglian Zhai, Redmar R. van den Berg, Sarah B. Kingan, Nina Gonzaludo, Ting Hon, Ting Han, Leonardo Arbiza, Ibrahim Numanagić, Susan L. Kloet, Jesse J. Swen

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacogenomics1000 Genomes ProjectIndelGeneticsComputational biologyBenchmarkingDNA sequencingGenotypingBiologyGenomeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismComputer scienceGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pharmacogenomics (PGx)-guided drug treatment is one of the cornerstones of personalized medicine. However, the genes involved in drug response are highly complex and known to carry many (rare) variants. Current technologies (short-read sequencing and SNP panels) are limited in their ability to resolve these genes and characterize all variants. Moreover, these technologies cannot always phase variants to their allele of origin. Recent advance in long-read sequencing technologies have shown promise in resolving these problems. Here we present a long-read sequencing panel-based approach for PGx using PacBio HiFi sequencing. A capture based approach was developed using a custom panel of clinically-relevant pharmacogenes including up- and downstream regions. A total of 27 samples were sequenced and panel accuracy was determined using benchmarking variant calls for 3 Genome in a Bottle samples and GeT-RM star(*)-allele calls for 21 samples.. The coverage was uniform for all samples with an average of 94% of bases covered at >30×. When compared to benchmarking results, accuracy was high with an average F1 score of 0.89 for INDELs and 0.98 for SNPs. Phasing was good with an average of 68% the target region phased (compared to ~20% for short-reads) and an average phased haploblock size of 6.6kbp. Using Aldy 4, we compared our variant calls to GeT-RM data for 8 genes ( CYP2B6, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, SLCO1B1, TPMT ), and observed highly accurate star(*)-allele calling with 98.2% concordance (165/168 calls), with only one discordance in CYP2C9 leading to a different predicted phenotype. We have shown that our long-read panel-based approach results in high accuracy and target phasing for SNVs as well as for clinical star(*)-alleles.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism→French-language works237,207→