Dataset Information

The effect of algorithms on copy number variant detection.

ABSTRACT: The detection of copy number variants (CNVs) and the results of CNV-disease association studies rely on how CNVs are defined, and because array-based technologies can only infer CNVs, CNV-calling algorithms can produce vastly different findings. Several authors have noted the large-scale variability between CNV-detection methods, as well as the substantial false positive and false negative rates associated with those methods. In this study, we use variations of four common algorithms for CNV detection (PennCNV, QuantiSNP, HMMSeg, and cnvPartition) and two definitions of overlap (any overlap and an overlap of at least 40% of the smaller CNV) to illustrate the effects of varying algorithms and definitions of overlap on CNV discovery.We used a 56 K Illumina genotyping array enriched for CNV regions to generate hybridization intensities and allele frequencies for 48 Caucasian schizophrenia cases and 48 age-, ethnicity-, and gender-matched control subjects. No algorithm found a difference in CNV burden between the two groups. However, the total number of CNVs called ranged from 102 to 3,765 across algorithms. The mean CNV size ranged from 46 kb to 787 kb, and the average number of CNVs per subject ranged from 1 to 39. The number of novel CNVs not previously reported in normal subjects ranged from 0 to 212.Motivated by the availability of multiple publicly available genome-wide SNP arrays, investigators are conducting numerous analyses to identify putative additional CNVs in complex genetic disorders. However, the number of CNVs identified in array-based studies, and whether these CNVs are novel or valid, will depend on the algorithm(s) used. Thus, given the variety of methods used, there will be many false positives and false negatives. Both guidelines for the identification of CNVs inferred from high-density arrays and the establishment of a gold standard for validation of CNVs are needed.

SUBMITTER: Tsuang DW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3012691 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of algorithms on copy number variant detection.

Tsuang Debby W DW Millard Steven P SP Ely Benjamin B Chi Peter P Wang Kenneth K Raskind Wendy H WH Kim Sulgi S Brkanac Zoran Z Yu Chang-En CE

PloS one 20101230 12

<h4>Background</h4>The detection of copy number variants (CNVs) and the results of CNV-disease association studies rely on how CNVs are defined, and because array-based technologies can only infer CNVs, CNV-calling algorithms can produce vastly different findings. Several authors have noted the large-scale variability between CNV-detection methods, as well as the substantial false positive and false negative rates associated with those methods. In this study, we use variations of four common alg ...[more]

PMID: 21209939

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWhole-genome sequencing using nanopore technologies can uncover structural variants, which are DNA rearrangements larger than 50 base pairs. Nanopore technologies can also characterize their boundaries with single-base accuracy, owing to the kilobase-long reads that encompass either full variants or their junctions. Other methods, such as next-generation short read sequencing or PCR assays, are limited in their capabilities to detect or characterize structural variants. However, the existing software for nanopore sequencing data analysis still reports incomplete variant sets, which also contain erroneous calls, a considerable obstacle for the molecular diagnosis or accurate genotyping of populations.MethodsWe compared multiple factors affecting variant calling, such as reference genome version, aligner (minimap2, NGMLR, and lra) choice, and variant caller combinations (Sniffles, CuteSV, SVIM, and NanoVar), to find the optimal group of tools for calling large (>50 kb) deletions and duplications, using data from seven patients exhibiting gross gene defects on SERPINC1 and from a reference variant set as the control. The goal was to obtain the most complete, yet reasonably specific group of large variants using a single cell of PromethION sequencing, which yielded lower depth coverage than short-read sequencing. We also used a custom method for the statistical analysis of the coverage value to refine the resulting datasets.ResultsWe found that for large deletions and duplications (>50 kb), the existing software performed worse than for smaller ones, in terms of both sensitivity and specificity, and newer tools had not improved this. Our novel software, disCoverage, could polish variant callers' results, improving specificity by up to 62% and sensitivity by 15%, the latter requiring other data or samples.ConclusionWe analyzed the current situation of >50-kb copy number variants with nanopore sequencing, which could be improved. The methods presented in this work could help to identify the known deletions and duplications in a set of patients, while also helping to filter out erroneous calls for these variants, which might aid the efforts to characterize a not-yet well-known fraction of genetic variability in the human genome.

Dataset Information

The effect of algorithms on copy number variant detection.

Publications

The effect of algorithms on copy number variant detection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets