Cited by 92Genomics and Rare DiseasesGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics

Assessment of clinical analytical sensitivity and specificity of next-generation sequencing for detection of simple and complex mutations

Open access
Chin, Ephrem LH, da Silva, Cristina, Hegde, Madhuri·2013·BMC Genetics

Abstract

Background: Detecting mutations in disease genes by full gene sequence analysis is common in clinical diagnostic laboratories. Sanger dideoxy terminator sequencing allows for rapid development and implementation of sequencing assays in the clinical laboratory, but it has limited throughput, and due to cost constraints, only allows analysis of one or at most a few genes in a patient. Next-generation sequencing (NGS), on the other hand, has evolved rapidly, although to date it has mainly been used for large-scale genome sequencing projects and is beginning to be used in the clinical diagnostic testing. One advantage of NGS is that many genes can be analyzed easily at the same time, allowing for mutation detection when there are many possible causative genes for a specific phenotype. In addition, regions of a gene typically not tested for mutations, like deep intronic and promoter mutations, can also be detected. Results: Here we use 20 previously characterized Sanger-sequenced positive controls in disease-causing genes to demonstrate the utility of NGS in a clinical setting using standard PCR based amplification to assess the analytical sensitivity and specificity of the technology for detecting all previously characterized changes (mutations and benign SNPs). The positive controls chosen for validation range from simple substitution mutations to complex deletion and insertion mutations occurring in autosomal dominant and recessive disorders. The NGS data was 100% concordant with the Sanger sequencing data identifying all 119 previously identified changes in the 20 samples. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that NGS technology is ready to be deployed in clinical laboratories. However, NGS and associated technologies are evolving, and clinical laboratories will need to invest significantly in staff and infrastructure to build the necessary foundation for success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2156-14-6

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sequencing is not affected by the same technical problem as SNP chips and thus provides a much more accurate method for genotyping rare variants.

    “Sequencing is not affected by the same technical problem as SNP chips and thus provides a much more accurate method for genotyping rare variants.30”

    From Use of SNP chips to detect rare pathogenic variants: retrospective, population based diagnostic evaluation (2021) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Abstract’s Results section reports that next-generation sequencing identified all 119 previously characterized changes in 20 samples, supporting its ability to detect genetic variants. The paper does not compare sequencing with SNP chips, identify a technical problem affecting chips, or establish greater accuracy for genotyping rare variants. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chin, E. L., da Silva, C., & Hegde, M.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Hegde, Madhuri
Venue
BMC Genetics
Published
2013-02-19
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
6-6
ISSN
1471-2156 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006384917
Cited by
92
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 4
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (RC1NS069541)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Keywords
next-generation sequencing, mutation detection, analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity, Sanger sequencing comparison, deep intronic mutation, promoter mutations, autosomal dominant disorder, autosomal recessive disorder, positive control
MeSH terms
DNA Mutational Analysis, Humans, Mutation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review