↓ Skip to main content

Effective Variant Detection by Targeted Deep Sequencing of DNA Pools: An Example from Parkinson's Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Human Genetics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effective Variant Detection by Targeted Deep Sequencing of DNA Pools: An Example from Parkinson's Disease
Published in
Annals of Human Genetics, March 2014
DOI 10.1111/ahg.12060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lasse Pihlstrøm, Aina Rengmark, Kari Anne Bjørnarå, Mathias Toft

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing technologies will dominate the next phase of discoveries in human genetics, but considerable costs may still represent a limitation for studies involving large sample sets. Targeted capture of genomic regions may be combined with deep sequencing of DNA pools to efficiently screen sample cohorts for disease-relevant mutations. We designed a 200 kb HaloPlex kit for PCR-based capture of all coding exons in 71 genes relevant to Parkinson's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. DNA from 387 patients with Parkinson's disease was combined into 39 pools, each representing 10 individuals, before library preparation with barcoding and Illumina sequencing. In this study, we focused the analysis on six genes implicated in Mendelian Parkinson's disease, emphasizing quality metrics and evaluation of the method, including validation of variants against individual genotyping and Sanger sequencing. Our data showed 97% sensitivity to detect a single nonreference allele in pools, rising to 100% where pools achieved sequence depth above 80x for the relevant position. Pooled sequencing detected 18 rare nonsynonymous variants, of which 17 were validated by independent methods, corresponding to a specificity of 94%. We argue that this design represents an effective and reliable approach with possible applications for both complex and Mendelian genetics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 11 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Human Genetics
#807
of 969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,759
of 236,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Human Genetics
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.