Literature DB >> 28544481

Matching phenotypes to whole genomes: Lessons learned from four iterations of the personal genome project community challenges.

Binghuang Cai1, Biao Li2, Nikki Kiga1, Janita Thusberg2, Timothy Bergquist1, Yun-Ching Chen3, Noushin Niknafs3, Hannah Carter4, Collin Tokheim3, Violeta Beleva-Guthrie3, Christopher Douville3, Rohit Bhattacharya5, Hui Ting Grace Yeo3, Jean Fan3, Sohini Sengupta3, Dewey Kim3, Melissa Cline6, Tychele Turner7, Mark Diekhans6, Jan Zaucha8,9, Lipika R Pal10, Chen Cao10,11, Chen-Hsin Yu10,11, Yizhou Yin10,11, Marco Carraro12, Manuel Giollo12,13, Carlo Ferrari13, Emanuela Leonardi14, Silvio C E Tosatto12,15, Jason Bobe16, Madeleine Ball16, Roger A Hoskins17, Susanna Repo18, George Church16, Steven E Brenner17, John Moult10,19, Julian Gough9, Mario Stanke20, Rachel Karchin3,21, Sean D Mooney1.   

Abstract

The advent of next-generation sequencing has dramatically decreased the cost for whole-genome sequencing and increased the viability for its application in research and clinical care. The Personal Genome Project (PGP) provides unrestricted access to genomes of individuals and their associated phenotypes. This resource enabled the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) to create a community challenge to assess the bioinformatics community's ability to predict traits from whole genomes. In the CAGI PGP challenge, researchers were asked to predict whether an individual had a particular trait or profile based on their whole genome. Several approaches were used to assess submissions, including ROC AUC (area under receiver operating characteristic curve), probability rankings, the number of correct predictions, and statistical significance simulations. Overall, we found that prediction of individual traits is difficult, relying on a strong knowledge of trait frequency within the general population, whereas matching genomes to trait profiles relies heavily upon a small number of common traits including ancestry, blood type, and eye color. When a rare genetic disorder is present, profiles can be matched when one or more pathogenic variants are identified. Prediction accuracy has improved substantially over the last 6 years due to improved methodology and a better understanding of features.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomedical informatics; community challenge; critical assessment; genome; genome interpretation; open consent; personal genome project (PGP); phenotype

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28544481      PMCID: PMC5645203          DOI: 10.1002/humu.23265

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mutat        ISSN: 1059-7794            Impact factor:   4.878


  26 in total

1.  Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits.

Authors:  Lucia A Hindorff; Praveen Sethupathy; Heather A Junkins; Erin M Ramos; Jayashri P Mehta; Francis S Collins; Teri A Manolio
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Human Gene Mutation Database.

Authors:  D N Cooper; M Krawczak
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 4.132

3.  Evolution and functional impact of rare coding variation from deep sequencing of human exomes.

Authors:  Jacob A Tennessen; Abigail W Bigham; Timothy D O'Connor; Wenqing Fu; Eimear E Kenny; Simon Gravel; Sean McGee; Ron Do; Xiaoming Liu; Goo Jun; Hyun Min Kang; Daniel Jordan; Suzanne M Leal; Stacey Gabriel; Mark J Rieder; Goncalo Abecasis; David Altshuler; Deborah A Nickerson; Eric Boerwinkle; Shamil Sunyaev; Carlos D Bustamante; Michael J Bamshad; Joshua M Akey
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  The UCSC Genome Browser.

Authors:  Donna Karolchik; Angie S Hinrichs; W James Kent
Journal:  Curr Protoc Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-12

5.  Predicting functional effect of human missense mutations using PolyPhen-2.

Authors:  Ivan Adzhubei; Daniel M Jordan; Shamil R Sunyaev
Journal:  Curr Protoc Hum Genet       Date:  2013-01

Review 6.  Common and rare variants in multifactorial susceptibility to common diseases.

Authors:  Walter Bodmer; Carolina Bonilla
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 7.  Red cell genotyping and the future of pretransfusion testing.

Authors:  David J Anstee
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 22.113

8.  Identifying Mendelian disease genes with the variant effect scoring tool.

Authors:  Hannah Carter; Christopher Douville; Peter D Stenson; David N Cooper; Rachel Karchin
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 3.969

9.  Predicting the functional, molecular, and phenotypic consequences of amino acid substitutions using hidden Markov models.

Authors:  Hashem A Shihab; Julian Gough; David N Cooper; Peter D Stenson; Gary L A Barker; Keith J Edwards; Ian N M Day; Tom R Gaunt
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 4.878

10.  Assessing the Pathogenicity of Insertion and Deletion Variants with the Variant Effect Scoring Tool (VEST-Indel).

Authors:  Christopher Douville; David L Masica; Peter D Stenson; David N Cooper; Derek M Gygax; Rick Kim; Michael Ryan; Rachel Karchin
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 4.878

View more
  7 in total

1.  Assessment of patient clinical descriptions and pathogenic variants from gene panel sequences in the CAGI-5 intellectual disability challenge.

Authors:  Marco Carraro; Alexander Miguel Monzon; Luigi Chiricosta; Francesco Reggiani; Maria Cristina Aspromonte; Mariagrazia Bellini; Kymberleigh Pagel; Yuxiang Jiang; Predrag Radivojac; Kunal Kundu; Lipika R Pal; Yizhou Yin; Ivan Limongelli; Gaia Andreoletti; John Moult; Stephen J Wilson; Panagiotis Katsonis; Olivier Lichtarge; Jingqi Chen; Yaqiong Wang; Zhiqiang Hu; Steven E Brenner; Carlo Ferrari; Alessandra Murgia; Silvio C E Tosatto; Emanuela Leonardi
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 4.878

2.  Reports from CAGI: The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation.

Authors:  Roger A Hoskins; Susanna Repo; Daniel Barsky; Gaia Andreoletti; John Moult; Steven E Brenner
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.878

3.  Genetic mutations associated with susceptibility to perioperative complications in a longitudinal biorepository with integrated genomic and electronic health records.

Authors:  Nicholas J Douville; Sachin Kheterpal; Milo Engoren; Michael Mathis; George A Mashour; Whitney E Hornsby; Cristen J Willer; Christopher B Douville
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  A method to delineate de novo missense variants across pathways prioritizes genes linked to autism.

Authors:  Amanda Koire; Panagiotis Katsonis; Young Won Kim; Christie Buchovecky; Stephen J Wilson; Olivier Lichtarge
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 17.956

5.  Piloting a model-to-data approach to enable predictive analytics in health care through patient mortality prediction.

Authors:  Timothy Bergquist; Yao Yan; Thomas Schaffter; Thomas Yu; Vikas Pejaver; Noah Hammarlund; Justin Prosser; Justin Guinney; Sean Mooney
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Idéfix: identifying accidental sample mix-ups in biobanks using polygenic scores.

Authors:  Robert Warmerdam; Pauline Lanting; Patrick Deelen; Lude Franke
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 6.937

Review 7.  Genome interpretation using in silico predictors of variant impact.

Authors:  Panagiotis Katsonis; Kevin Wilhelm; Amanda Williams; Olivier Lichtarge
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 5.881

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.