Dataset Information

A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data.

ABSTRACT: Copy-number variations (CNVs) have important clinical implications for several diseases and cancers. Relevant CNVs are hard to detect because common structural variations define large parts of the human genome. CNV calling from short-read sequencing would allow single protocol full genomic profiling. We reviewed 50 popular CNV calling tools and included 11 tools for benchmarking in a reference cohort encompassing 39 whole genome sequencing (WGS) samples paired current clinical standard-SNP-array based CNV calling. Additionally, for nine samples we also performed whole exome sequencing (WES), to address the effect of sequencing protocol on CNV calling. Furthermore, we included Gold Standard reference sample NA12878, and tested 12 samples with CNVs confirmed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Tool performance varied greatly in the number of called CNVs and bias for CNV lengths. Some tools had near-perfect recall of CNVs from arrays for some samples, but poor precision. Several tools had better performance for NA12878, which could be a result of overfitting. We suggest combining the best tools also based on different methodologies: GATK gCNV, Lumpy, DELLY, and cn.MOPS. Reducing the total number of called variants could potentially be assisted by the use of background panels for filtering of frequently called variants.

SUBMITTER: Gabrielaite M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8699073 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data.

Gabrielaite Migle M Torp Mathias Husted MH Rasmussen Malthe Sebro MS Andreu-Sánchez Sergio S Vieira Filipe Garrett FG Pedersen Christina Bligaard CB Kinalis Savvas S Madsen Majbritt Busk MB Kodama Miyako M Demircan Gül Sude GS Simonyan Arman A Yde Christina Westmose CW Olsen Lars Rønn LR Marvig Rasmus L RL Østrup Olga O Rossing Maria M Nielsen Finn Cilius FC Winther Ole O Bagger Frederik Otzen FO

Cancers 20211214 24

Copy-number variations (CNVs) have important clinical implications for several diseases and cancers. Relevant CNVs are hard to detect because common structural variations define large parts of the human genome. CNV calling from short-read sequencing would allow single protocol full genomic profiling. We reviewed 50 popular CNV calling tools and included 11 tools for benchmarking in a reference cohort encompassing 39 whole genome sequencing (WGS) samples paired current clinical standard-SNP-array ...[more]

PMID: 34944901

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently copy number variation (CNV) has gained considerable interest as a type of genomic/genetic variation that plays an important role in disease susceptibility. Advances in sequencing technology have created an opportunity for detecting CNVs more accurately. Recently whole exome sequencing (WES) has become primary strategy for sequencing patient samples and study their genomics aberrations. However, compared to whole genome sequencing, WES introduces more biases and noise that make CNV detection very challenging. Additionally, tumors' complexity makes the detection of cancer specific CNVs even more difficult. Although many CNV detection tools have been developed since introducing NGS data, there are few tools for somatic CNV detection for WES data in cancer.ResultsIn this study, we evaluated the performance of the most recent and commonly used CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer to address their limitations and provide guidelines for developing new ones. We focused on the tools that have been designed or have the ability to detect cancer somatic aberrations. We compared the performance of the tools in terms of sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) using real data and simulated data. Comparative analysis of the results of the tools showed that there is a low consensus among the tools in calling CNVs. Using real data, tools show moderate sensitivity (~50% - ~80%), fair specificity (~70% - ~94%) and poor FDRs (~27% - ~60%). Also, using simulated data we observed that increasing the coverage more than 10× in exonic regions does not improve the detection power of the tools significantly.ConclusionsThe limited performance of the current CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer indicates the need for developing more efficient and precise CNV detection methods. Due to the complexity of tumors and high level of noise and biases in WES data, employing advanced novel segmentation, normalization and de-noising techniques that are designed specifically for cancer data is necessary. Also, CNV detection development suffers from the lack of a gold standard for performance evaluation. Finally, developing tools with user-friendly user interfaces and visualization features can enhance CNV studies for a broader range of users.

Dataset Information

A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data.

Publications

A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets