Evaluating the Calling Performance of a Rare Disease NGS Panel for Single Nucleotide and Copy Number Variants.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
Variant detection protocols for clinical next-generation sequencing (NGS) need application-specific optimization. Our aim was to analyze the performance of single nucleotide variant (SNV) and copy number (CNV) detection programs on an NGS panel for a rare disease.
METHODS
Thirty genes were sequenced in 83 patients with hereditary spastic paraplegia. The variant calls obtained with LifeScope, GATK UnifiedGenotyper and GATK HaplotypeCaller were compared with Sanger sequencing. The calling efficiency was evaluated for 187 (56 unique) SNVs and indels. Five multiexon deletions detected by multiple ligation probe assay were assessed from the NGS panel data with ExomeDepth, panelcn.MOPS and CNVPanelizer software.
RESULTS
There were 48/51 (94%) SNVs and 1/5 (20%) indels consistently detected by all the calling algorithms. Two SNVs were not detected by any of the callers because of a rare reference allele, and one SNV in a low coverage region was only detected by two algorithms. Regarding CNVs, ExomeDepth detected 5/5 multi-exon deletions, panelcn.MOPs 4/5 and only 3/5 deletions were accurately detected by CNVPanelizer.
CONCLUSIONS
The calling efficiency of NGS algorithms for SNVs is influenced by variant type and coverage. NGS protocols need to account for the presence of rare variants in the reference sequence as well as for ambiguities in indel calling. CNV detection algorithms can be used to identify large deletions from NGS panel data for diagnostic applications; however, sensitivity depends on coverage, selection of the reference set and deletion size. We recommend the incorporation of several variant callers in the NGS pipeline to maximize variant detection efficiency.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.