Evaluating seven bioinformatics platforms for tertiary analysis of genomic data from whole exome sequencing in a pilot group of patients.

IF 1.1 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Advances in laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-10 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1515/almed-2025-0031
Nerea Bastida-Lertxundi, Itxaso Martí-Carrera, Borja Laña-Ruíz, Otilia Martínez-Múgica Barbosa, Raquel Muguerza-Iraola, Raquel Sáez-Villaverde, Julien S Crettaz
{"title":"Evaluating seven bioinformatics platforms for tertiary analysis of genomic data from whole exome sequencing in a pilot group of patients.","authors":"Nerea Bastida-Lertxundi, Itxaso Martí-Carrera, Borja Laña-Ruíz, Otilia Martínez-Múgica Barbosa, Raquel Muguerza-Iraola, Raquel Sáez-Villaverde, Julien S Crettaz","doi":"10.1515/almed-2025-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate seven bioinformatics platforms for automated AI-based genomic variant prioritization and classification.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An evaluation was performed of 24 genetic variants that explained the phenotype of 20 patients. FASTQ files were simultaneously uploaded on the following bioinformatics platforms: Emedgene, eVai, Varsome Clinical, CentoCloud, QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret, SeqOne and Franklin. Automated variant prioritization and classification was performed using patient phenotypes. Phenotypes were entered onto the different platforms using HPO terms. The classification of reference was established based on the criteria of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association of Molecular Pathology and ACMG/ClinGen guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SeqOne demonstrated the highest performance in variant prioritization and ranked 19 of 24 variants in the Top 1; four in the Top 5, and one in the Top 15, followed by CentoCloud and Franklin. QCI Interpret did not prioritize six variants and failed to detect one. Emedgene did not prioritize one and failed to detect one. Finally, Varsome Clinical did not prioritize four variants. Franklin classified correctly 75 % of variants, followed by Varsome Clinical (67 %) and QCI Interpret (63 %).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SeqOne, CentoCloud, and Franklin had the highest performance in automated variant prioritization, as they prioritized all variants. In relation to automated classification, Franklin showed a higher concordance with the reference and a lower number of discordances with clinical implications. In conclusion, Franklin emerges as the platform with the best overall performance. Anyway, further studies are needed to confirm these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":72097,"journal":{"name":"Advances in laboratory medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":"28-36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11949535/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/almed-2025-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate seven bioinformatics platforms for automated AI-based genomic variant prioritization and classification.

Methods: An evaluation was performed of 24 genetic variants that explained the phenotype of 20 patients. FASTQ files were simultaneously uploaded on the following bioinformatics platforms: Emedgene, eVai, Varsome Clinical, CentoCloud, QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret, SeqOne and Franklin. Automated variant prioritization and classification was performed using patient phenotypes. Phenotypes were entered onto the different platforms using HPO terms. The classification of reference was established based on the criteria of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association of Molecular Pathology and ACMG/ClinGen guidelines.

Results: SeqOne demonstrated the highest performance in variant prioritization and ranked 19 of 24 variants in the Top 1; four in the Top 5, and one in the Top 15, followed by CentoCloud and Franklin. QCI Interpret did not prioritize six variants and failed to detect one. Emedgene did not prioritize one and failed to detect one. Finally, Varsome Clinical did not prioritize four variants. Franklin classified correctly 75 % of variants, followed by Varsome Clinical (67 %) and QCI Interpret (63 %).

Conclusions: SeqOne, CentoCloud, and Franklin had the highest performance in automated variant prioritization, as they prioritized all variants. In relation to automated classification, Franklin showed a higher concordance with the reference and a lower number of discordances with clinical implications. In conclusion, Franklin emerges as the platform with the best overall performance. Anyway, further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估七个生物信息学平台,用于对一组试点患者的全外显子组测序的基因组数据进行三级分析。
目的:评价7个基于人工智能的基因组变异自动排序和分类的生物信息学平台。方法:对解释20例患者表型的24种遗传变异进行了评估。FASTQ文件同时上传到以下生物信息学平台:Emedgene、eVai、Varsome Clinical、CentoCloud、QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret、SeqOne和Franklin。根据患者表型进行自动变异优先排序和分类。使用HPO术语将表型输入到不同的平台。参考文献分类是根据美国医学遗传学和基因组学学院(ACMG)、分子病理学协会和ACMG/ClinGen指南的标准建立的。结果:SeqOne在变异优先排序方面表现最好,在24个变异中有19个排在Top 1;4家进入前5名,1家进入前15名,其次是CentoCloud和Franklin。QCI Interpret没有对六种变异进行优先排序,未能检测到一种。Emedgene没有对其中一种进行优先排序,也没有检测到其中一种。最后,Varsome Clinical并没有对四种变异进行优先排序。Franklin正确分类了75% %的变异,其次是Varsome Clinical(67% %)和QCI Interpret(63% %)。结论:SeqOne、CentoCloud和Franklin在自动变量优先化方面具有最高的性能,因为它们对所有的变量进行了优先化。在自动分类方面,Franklin与参考文献的一致性较高,与临床意义的不一致性较低。综上所述,Franklin是整体表现最好的平台。无论如何,需要进一步的研究来证实这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信