首页> 外文期刊>Briefings in bioinformatics >Evaluation of somatic copy number estimation tools for whole-exome sequencing data
【24h】

Evaluation of somatic copy number estimation tools for whole-exome sequencing data

机译:评估全外显子测序数据的体细胞拷贝数估计工具

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has become a standard method for detecting genetic variants in human diseases. Although the primary use of WES data has been the identification of single nucleotide variations and indels, these data also offer a possibility of detecting copy number variations (CNVs) at high resolution. However, WES data have uneven read coverage along the genome owing to the target capture step, and the development of a robust WES-based CNV tool is challenging. Here, we evaluate six WES somatic CNV detection tools: ADTEx, CONTRA, Control-FREEC, EXCAVATOR, ExomeCNV and Varscan2. Using WES data from 50 kidney chromophobe, 50 bladder urothelial carcinoma, and 50 stomach adenocarcinoma patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas, we compared the CNV calls from the six tools with a reference CNV set that was identified by both single nucleotide polymorphism array 6.0 and whole-genome sequencing data. We found that these algorithms gave highly variable results: visual inspection reveals significant differences between the WES-based segmentation profiles and the reference profile, as well as among the WES-based profiles. Using a 50% overlap criterion, 13-77% of WES CNV calls were covered by CNVs from the reference set, up to 21% of the copy gains were called as losses or vice versa, and dramatic differences in CNV sizes and CNV numbers were observed. Overall, ADTEx and EXCAVATOR had the best performance with relatively high precision and sensitivity. We suggest that the current algorithms for somatic CNV detection from WES data are limited in their performance and that more robust algorithms are needed.
机译:全外显子测序(WES)已成为检测人类疾病中遗传变异的标准方法。尽管WES数据的主要用途是识别单个核苷酸变异和插入缺失,但这些数据还提供了以高分辨率检测拷贝数变异(CNV)的可能性。但是,由于目标捕获步骤,WES数据在基因组上的读取覆盖范围不均匀,因此,开发基于WES的强大CNV工具非常具有挑战性。在这里,我们评估了六个WES体细胞CNV检测工具:ADTEx,CONTRA,FREEC,EXCAVATOR,ExomeCNV和Varscan2。使用来自The Cancer Genome Atlas的50例肾生色团,50例膀胱尿路上皮癌和50例胃腺癌患者的WES数据,我们比较了这6种工具的CNV调用与通过单核苷酸多态性阵列6.0和整个核苷酸序列确定的参考CNV集基因组测序数据。我们发现这些算法给出了高度可变的结果:视觉检查显示了基于WES的细分配置文件和参考配置文件之间以及基于WES的配置文件之间的显着差异。使用50%重叠标准,参考集中的CNV可以覆盖13-77%的WES CNV呼叫,最多可以将21%的复制收益称为损失,反之亦然,并且CNV大小和CNV数量存在显着差异观测到的。总体而言,ADTEx和EXCAVATOR具有相对较高的精度和灵敏度,表现最佳。我们建议,目前用于从WES数据进行体细胞CNV检测的算法在性能上受到限制,因此需要更强大的算法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号