Computational pharmacogenotype extraction from clinical next-generation sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Next-generation sequencing (NGS), including whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES), is increasingly being used for clinic care. While NGS data have the potential to be repurposed to support clinical pharmacogenomics (PGx), current computational approaches have not been widely validated using clinical data. In this study, we assessed the accuracy of the Aldy computational method to extract PGx genotypes from WGS and WES data for 14 and 13 major pharmacogenes, respectively. Methods Germline DNA was isolated from whole blood samples collected for 264 patients seen at our institutional molecular solid tumor board. DNA was used for panel-based genotyping within our institutional Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments- (CLIA-) certified PGx laboratory. DNA was also sent to other CLIA-certified commercial laboratories for clinical WGS or WES. Aldy v3.3 and v4.4 were used to extract PGx genotypes from these NGS data, and results were compared to the panel-based genotyping reference standard that contained 45 star allele-defining variants within CYP2B6 , CYP2C8 , CYP2C9 , CYP2C19 , CYP2D6 , CYP3A4 , CYP3A5 , CYP4F2 , DPYD , G6PD , NUDT15 , SLCO1B1 , TPMT , and VKORC1 . Results Mean WGS read depth was >30x for all variant regions except for G6PD (average read depth was 29 reads), and mean WES read depth was >30x for all variant regions. For 94 patients with WGS, Aldy v3.3 diplotype calls were concordant with those from the genotyping reference standard in 99.5% of cases when excluding diplotypes with additional major star alleles not tested by targeted genotyping, ambiguous phasing, and CYP2D6 hybrid alleles. Aldy v3.3 identified 15 additional clinically actionable star alleles not covered by genotyping within CYP2B6 , CYP2C19 , DPYD , SLCO1B1 , and NUDT15 . Within the WGS cohort, Aldy v4.4 diplotype calls were concordant with those from genotyping in 99.7% of cases. When excluding patients with CYP2D6 copy number variation, all Aldy v4.4 diplotype calls except for one CYP3A4 diplotype call were concordant with genotyping for 161 patients in the WES cohort. Conclusion Aldy v3.3 and v4.4 called diplotypes for major pharmacogenes from clinical WES and WGS data with >99% accuracy. These findings support the use of Aldy to repurpose clinical NGS data to inform clinical PGx.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".