Spreadsheets have misprints – it is known

by Myles Axton

Normally we do not re-examine supplementary information in this detail, but there is a common minor problem that systematically affects a small number of gene IDs within long lists of gene names copied into spreadsheets in the supplementary tables of many articles. We suggest checking for this problem before submitting tables to journals. It is easy to see the altered gene names by sorting the column in a separate version of the file and then searching for the misspelled name to correct it in the replacement version intended for publication.

Example of the Excel formatting issue

Example of the Excel formatting issue

The authors of this paper claim that gene names in a large proportion of papers reporting gene expression data have this problem. Here we list the supplementary tables they identified in the journal prior to 2015 and from the first nine months of 2016 that we found to contain one or more misprints. We think that these mistakes do not prevent reuse of the datasets provided and as stated in the accompanying editorial Legible ledgers we do not propose to publish formal Corrigenda for the supplementary tables of these articles.

 

Joint calling of the ExAC publications

ExAC publications in Nature

We report this week in Nature and Nature Genetics the first publications from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), a project that has generated the largest catalogue to date of variation in the protein-coding regions of the genome (known collectively as the exome), aggregating sequence data from over 60,000 individuals from across 21 research studies. Most importantly, they have provided a publicly accessible database (https://exac.broadinstitute.org), which has already become a critical resource for research and clinical studies. While an estimated over 1 million individuals have been exome or whole genome sequenced, only a small fraction of this data has been made publicly available, as there are many challenges to sharing and providing open access to these datasets. We applaud the authors for recognizing this need and meeting these challenges.

This work comes 15 years after we published the Human Genome Project, and follows in a series of community resources to catalogue variation in human genomes within and across populations. We continue to support these efforts, recognizing the necessity of developing these resources to further studies to understand the information encoded in our genome, genetic variation and genetic basis of disease.

Mapping ExAC publications

Very rare genetic variation: a first look

The scale of this sequencing dataset in ExAC has provided some of our first glimpses into very rare genetic variation across populations, with several important early insights. Firstly, the authors identify more than 7.4 million high-confidence genetic variants, on average one every 8 bases, the majority of them entirely novel (not present in any existing database) and extremely rare (more than half of the variants are seen only once across all 60,706 samples). Second, they are able to document recurrent rare mutations emerging independently, providing an estimate of the frequency of recurrence, never observed systematically before due to the need for such large sample sizes. Third, they are able to examine the level of selective constraint against protein-truncating variation, identifying 3,230 genes that appear highly loss-of-function-intolerant. Reassuringly, this includes most known human haploinsufficient disease genes, however 72% do not yet have an established human disease phenotype. While some of these genes may be associated with weaker phenotypes or embryonic lethality, this points to how much more we have yet to understand about the phenotypic consequences of loss of function in human genes.

Copy number variation in ExAC

In a companion paper in Nature Genetics, Douglas Rudefer, Shaun Purcell and colleagues examine rare copy number variation (CNV) with the ExAC dataset, specifically the rates and properties of genic CNVs with <0.5% frequency. They use their previous method XHMM to characterize CNV calls from this exome sequencing dataset. They find that ~70% of individuals carry at least one rare genic CNV, with an average of 0.81 deleted and 1.75 duplicated genes. The authors also estimate relative intolerance to CNVs for each gene. This CNV dataset is incorporated into ExAC and will be useful for continuing population and disease association studies, together with other measures of genic intolerance, and the authors provide an example of this in analysis of a schizophrenia case-control study.

Clinical genetics: classifying pathogenic variation

The current work also brings an important message for clinical genetics in the need for reexamining the literature on classifying pathogenic variation for rare disorders. The average ExAC participant harbors ~54 variants that have previously been classified as causal for a disease, and considering the ascertainment of the study it is likely that most of this may be due to misclassified variants.

Using ExAC as a reference panel for classifying disease relevant variation, Lek et al. review the evidence for pathogenicity of 192 previously reported pathogenic variants for rare Mendelian disorders. Only 9 of these variants had sufficient support for disease association, with a high proportion of these variants present at an implausibly high frequency in the ExAC dataset. This suggests that many of these were false positive associations and incorrectly classified as pathogenic, the implications of which are not merely academic, as these findings are often used in clinical diagnoses and treatment.

In two additional companion publications, the authors take this a step further and demonstrate what is needed to move towards resolution of the nature of these prior associations, by bringing together large case series combined with ExAC. Walsh et al. (Genetics in Medicine, 10.1038/GIM.2016.90 published online August 17, 2016) systematically reexamine evidence for genes implicated in cardiomyopathy, one of the most common and severe rare disorders, and find many well known purported cardiomyopathy genes do not show support for pathogenicity, including some that are included in routine clinical genetic testing. Similarly, Minikel et al. collect 16,025 prion disease cases, the largest case series ever available for prion disease, for which ~10-15% of cases are estimated to be caused by mutations in the PRNP gene. They find a number of variants in PRNP thought to be pathogenic and with high penetrance appear to be likely benign (Minikel et al. Science Translational Medicine 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad5169). This led to a corrected patient diagnosis soon after this report, as Robert Green explained in his Perspective accompanying this publication (Lebo et al. Science Translational Medicine 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad9460).

These findings highlight the necessity to carefully evaluate the literature for rare genetic disorders. This also reinforces the value of large reference panels such as ExAC for filtering variants seen in patient exomes, a practice most of the genomics community has adopted in establishing standards for assessing sequence variants in human disease (MacArthur et al. Nature 508, 469–476 (2014), 10.1038/nature13127). The ExAC project continues to expand in size, hoping to increase to more than 120,000 exome sequences over this next year, as well as 20,000 whole genome sequences, bringing additional sample size, diversity and exploration of non-coding regions that will aid these efforts.

ClinVar and contributing to variant interpretation databases

This project, which relied on the willingness of many large research consortia to provide their raw data, demonstrates the extreme value of promoting the sharing, aggregation and harmonization of genomic data. This is true also for patient genetic variants, as there is a need for databases that provide greater confidence in variant interpretation. NCBI’s ClinVar database, which accepts contributions of clinically annotated genetic variation from clinical labs, clinicians and researchers, has become a key resource for clinical variant interpretation.

Improvements to the landscape of clinical genetics will require continued investment in such variant databases, continued expansion of human genetic reference panels, as well as efforts to link these to phenotype data. Recontacting to obtain phenotype data will be trialed on a subset of the ExAC dataset where consents allow, while new initiatives such as the UK 100,000 Genomes Project and the US Precision Medicine Initiative will also provide linked genome and phenotype information. Finally, enabling the ethical sharing of linked genetic and clinical data without violating participant privacy will require fundamental innovation in regulation and ethics policy, work that has been started by bodies such as the NIH and the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, but around which considerable uncertainty remains.

Human Genome Meeting 2016

I recently attended the Human Genome Meeting (HGM2016) in Houston, TX and wanted to share some of the highlights from the meeting.

The overall focus of the meeting was the application of genomics to medicine, and the presentations were, without exception, excellent. There is no way I can possibly summarize all of the great science that was presented at the meeting, but I’d like to focus on some general themes that emerged. Continue reading

Preliminary look at GWAS articles including dbGaP accessions

{credit}NCBI {/credit}

In this month’s Editorial (doi:10.1038/ng.3088) we mention 66 articles in this journal published between 2008 and 2013 that cite dbGaP accession codes and we took a preliminary look at citation of 13 pairs of GWAS articles with and without a dbGaP accession published on the same trait on the same day in the same journal (in the case of more than two simultaneous articles, non-overlapping pairs were assigned by sequential DOI number). Here are the references and some of the citation information for readers who want to investigate this area further.

Simultaneously published articles with citation data:

Screen Shot 2014-08-25 at 4.33.49 PM

citationdataAll Nature Genetics articles with dbGaP accession:

DOI Scopus citations up to 8/1/14
10.1038/ng.249 212
10.1038/ng.364 184
10.1038/ng.362 174
10.1038/ng.416 128
10.1038/ng.311 468
10.1038/ng.269 396
10.1038/ng.291 583
10.1038/ng.290 305
10.1038/ng.386 111
10.1038/ng.384 464
10.1038/ng.381 534
10.1038/ng.377 169
10.1038/ng.456 86
10.1038/ng.466 137
10.1038/ng.474 270
10.1038/ng.432 141
10.1038/ng.716 87
10.1038/ng.714 131
10.1038/ng.520 628
10.1038/ng.523 86
10.1038/ng.521 211
10.1038/ng.517 134
10.1038/ng.501 191
10.1038/ng.493 75
10.1038/ng.602 46
10.1038/ng.604 68
10.1038/ng.537 148
10.1038/ng.568 198
10.1038/ng.567 80
10.1038/ng.571 281
10.1038/ng.573 223
10.1038/ng.686 761
10.1038/ng.666 91
10.1038/ng.642 197
10.1038/ng.1017 52
10.1038/ng.1013 56
10.1038/ng01113 13
10.1038/ng.859 85
10.1038/ng.803 374
10.1038/ng.801 387
10.1038/ng.970 69
10.1038/ng.922 75
10.1038/ng.934 31
10.1038/ng.941 77
10.1038/ng.223 43
10.1038/ng.2250 103
10.1038/ng.2466 18
10.1038/ng.1108 124
10.1038/ng.1051 45
10.1038/ng.2354 95
10.1038/ng.2344 35
10.1038/ng.2213 60
10.1038/ng.2274 71
10.1038/ng.2285 22
10.1038/ng.2272 40
10.1038/ng.2368 23
10.1038/ng.2360 30
10.1038/ng.2385 63
10.1038/ng.2564 42
10.1038/ng.2505 23
10.1038/ng.2529 51
10.1038/ng.2554 38
10.1038/ng.2792 17
10.1038/ng.2794 6
10.1038/ng.2764 42
10.1038/ng.2702 36

Focus on TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis

Nature Genetics is pleased to present today the first installment of our Focus on TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis.

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGAhas analyzed over 8,000 cancer cases across 27 tumor types to date, and aim to have over 100,000 specimens analyzed by the of 2015. They have commendably made both data and exploration tools publicly available at https://www.cancergenome.nih.gov. They have previously published 8 papers reporting in-depth genomic characterization of individual tumor types.

The TCGA Pan-Cancer initiative, launched in October 2012 at meeting in Santa Cruz, California, seeks to combine analysis across tumor types in order to identify both similarities and differences in genomic alterations.  The work presented in this collection of Pan-Cancer publications includes analysis of the first 12 TCGA tumor types. This includes over 3,000 cancer patients profiled with 6 different platforms to assess genomic, transcriptional, epigenetic and proteomic alterations, combined with clinical data.  The authors demonstrate that while a majority of the tumor samples show unique genomic alterations, that by combining analysis they are able to both increase statistical power for the detection  of molecular drivers and to identify common pathways that are altered across tumor types.

The Pan-Cancer initiative provides a model for large-scale collaborative analysis as well as data sharing, bringing together over 250 collaborators from ~30 institutions working together on over 60 projects analyzing the same dataset.  These efforts required a strong collaborative framework, a commitment to rapid distribution of data, and means to facilitate shared analysis. Josh Stuart and colleagues provide an overview of this project in an accompanying Commentary.

This work also relied on the development of new bioinformatics tools and platforms, providing a foundation that should prove useful in future large-scale analysis projects. A Commentary by Larsson Omberg and colleagues highlights these approaches and the use of the Synapse software platform to share and evolve data, analysis and results among the Pan-Cancer Working Group. The Synapse platform was developed by Sage Bionetworks to facilitate open and data-driven collaborative research efforts, and is also being well used in DREAM challenges.  The use of this platform supported the discovery efforts reported in this collection of Pan-Cancer papers, which also provide a public resource of highly curated and standardized data sets across a series of data freezes along with automated analysis systems.

In the first of two Analysis papers published today in Nature Genetics, Chris Sander and colleagues provide a hierarchical classification of 3,299 tumors from 12 cancer types from the Pan-Cancer dataset, using a newly developed algorithmic approach. Their analysis separates tumors into those with primarily somatic mutations and those with primarily copy number alterations. They also identify oncogenic signatures that characterize ~30 tumor subclasses, which may suggest therapeutic targets of relevance across tumor types.

In a second Analysis published in Nature Genetics, Rameen Beroukhim and colleagues characterized somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) in 11 cancer types and 4,934 primary cancer specimens from the Pan-Cancer dataset.  They observed whole-genome doubling in 37% of cancers, associated with higher rates of all SCNA.

We are pleased to support the TCGA Pan-Cancer efforts as a model for large-scale collaborative genomics projects combined with open data sharing, and demonstrating the ready benefits this can bring to our understanding of the molecular drivers of cancer.  The TCGA Pan-Cancer project continues to develop, and so will this Focus, so please get primed with this selection of publications and stay tuned.  In the meantime, here is a selection of social media and press stories: https://storify.com/obahcall/nature-genetics-pan-cancer-focus.