2019
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbz092
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tools for fundamental analysis functions of TCR repertoires: a systematic comparison

Abstract: The full set of T cell receptors (TCRs) in an individual is known as his or her TCR repertoire. Defining TCR repertoires under physiological conditions and in response to a disease or vaccine may lead to a better understanding of adaptive immunity and thus has great biological and clinical value. In the past decade, several high-throughput sequencing-based tools have been developed to assign TCRs to germline genes and to extract complementarity-determining region 3 (CDR3) sequences using different algorithms. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…40 In the review of TCR sequencing software, the first study generated an in silico data set and assessed clonotype detection, CDR3 identification, error correction and gene segment assignment accuracy. 61 This study found that not all algorithms were able to run all four subanalyses and that the performances varied greatly across individual algorithms, particularly for gene assignment and error correction. The second study performed a similar analysis 62 and concluded that no single tool performed optimally for all types of analyses but recommended MiXCR 50 if limited to a single analysis.…”
Section: Variant Detection Workflowmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…40 In the review of TCR sequencing software, the first study generated an in silico data set and assessed clonotype detection, CDR3 identification, error correction and gene segment assignment accuracy. 61 This study found that not all algorithms were able to run all four subanalyses and that the performances varied greatly across individual algorithms, particularly for gene assignment and error correction. The second study performed a similar analysis 62 and concluded that no single tool performed optimally for all types of analyses but recommended MiXCR 50 if limited to a single analysis.…”
Section: Variant Detection Workflowmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…To increase the reliability of processed TCR sequences, multiple TCR extraction methods were used: CATT ( 22 ), MiXCR ( 23 ) and IMSEQ ( 24 ). These methods had demonstrated precise and sensitive performance on previous benchmarks ( 22 , 25 ). To reduce false positives, we used the intersection sets of TCR repertoire retrieved by three methods as the final result of a sample.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As shown in Figure 1, we obtained the candidate AUSs through the following six steps: i) V allele variant detection via IgDiscover with initial species-specific databases downloaded from IMGT/GENE-DB [7,26]. The newly discovered genes/alleles were merged with initial databases and carried on for downstream analyses; ii) the sequences from each sample were annotated and assembled via MiXCR (compared in Zhang et al [27]) and clonotypes were consequently extracted based on CDR3s and V and junctional (J) allele usages; iii) each sample were genotyped via a Bayesian method adapted from TIgGER; iv) the AUS in each clonotype was extracted and dimed as the initial AUS for that particular V allele; v) for each V allele, the consensus of all initial AUSs were calculated and defined as the final AUS(s). Alleles not in the genotype were excluded in this step; vi) a scoring-based method was employed to retain the most confident AUSs.…”
Section: Bioinformatics Pipeline For Obtaining High-quality Aussmentioning
confidence: 99%