Dataset Information

Detailed comparison of two popular variant calling packages for exome and targeted exon studies.

ABSTRACT: The Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) is commonly used for variant calling of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and small insertions and deletions (indels) from short-read sequencing data aligned against a reference genome. There have been a number of variant calling comparisons against GATK, but an equally comprehensive comparison for VarScan not yet been performed. More specifically, we compare (1) the effects of different pre-processing steps prior to variant calling with both GATK and VarScan, (2) VarScan variants called with increasingly conservative parameters, and (3) filtered and unfiltered GATK variant calls (for both the UnifiedGenotyper and the HaplotypeCaller). Variant calling was performed on three datasets (1 targeted exon dataset and 2 exome datasets), each with approximately a dozen subjects. In most cases, pre-processing steps (e.g., indel realignment and quality score base recalibration using GATK) had only a modest impact on the variant calls, but the importance of the pre-processing steps varied between datasets and variant callers. Based upon concordance statistics presented in this study, we recommend GATK users focus on "high-quality" GATK variants by filtering out variants flagged as low-quality. We also found that running VarScan with a conservative set of parameters (referred to as "VarScan-Cons") resulted in a reproducible list of variants, with high concordance (>97%) to high-quality variants called by the GATK UnifiedGenotyper and HaplotypeCaller. These conservative parameters result in decreased sensitivity, but the VarScan-Cons variant list could still recover 84-88% of the high-quality GATK SNPs in the exome datasets. This study also provides limited evidence that VarScan-Cons has a decreased false positive rate among novel variants (relative to high-quality GATK SNPs) and that the GATK HaplotypeCaller has an increased false positive rate for indels (relative to VarScan-Cons and high-quality GATK UnifiedGenotyper indels). More broadly, we believe the metrics used for comparison in this study can be useful in assessing the quality of variant calls in the context of a specific experimental design. As an example, a limited number of variant calling comparisons are also performed on two additional variant callers.

SUBMITTER: Warden CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4184249 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Detailed comparison of two popular variant calling packages for exome and targeted exon studies.

Warden Charles D CD Adamson Aaron W AW Neuhausen Susan L SL Wu Xiwei X

PeerJ 20140930

The Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) is commonly used for variant calling of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and small insertions and deletions (indels) from short-read sequencing data aligned against a reference genome. There have been a number of variant calling comparisons against GATK, but an equally comprehensive comparison for VarScan not yet been performed. More specifically, we compare (1) the effects of different pre-processing steps prior to variant calling with both GATK and VarS ...[more]

PMID: 25289185

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide investigators with an inexpensive platform for human whole exome sequencing that achieves a rapid turnaround time. However, few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. The Ion Proton sequencer combined with the Ion TargetSeq Exome Enrichment Kit together make up TargetSeq-Proton, whereas SureSelect-Hiseq is based on the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon v4 Kit and the HiSeq 2000 sequencer.ResultsHere, we sequenced exonic DNA from four human blood samples using both TargetSeq-Proton and SureSelect-HiSeq. We then called variants in the exonic regions that overlapped between the two exome capture kits (33.6 Mb). The rates of shared variant loci called by two sequencing platforms were from 68.0 to 75.3% in four samples, whereas the concordance of co-detected variant loci reached 99%. Sanger sequencing validation revealed that the validated rate of concordant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (91.5%) was higher than the SNPs specific to TargetSeq-Proton (60.0%) or specific to SureSelect-HiSeq (88.3%). With regard to 1-bp small insertions and deletions (InDels), the Sanger sequencing validated rates of concordant variants (100.0%) and SureSelect-HiSeq-specific (89.6%) were higher than those of TargetSeq-Proton-specific (15.8%).ConclusionsIn the sequencing of exonic regions, a combination of using of two sequencing strategies (SureSelect-HiSeq and TargetSeq-Proton) increased the variant calling specificity for concordant variant loci and the sensitivity for variant loci called by any one platform. However, for the sequencing of platform-specific variants, the accuracy of variant calling by HiSeq 2000 was higher than that of Ion Proton, specifically for the InDel detection. Moreover, the variant calling software also influences the detection of SNPs and, specifically, InDels in Ion Proton exome sequencing.

Project description:Mendelian disorders are mostly caused by single mutations in the DNA sequence of a gene, leading to a phenotype with pathologic consequences. Whole Exome Sequencing of patients can be a cost-effective alternative to standard genetic screenings to find causative mutations of genetic diseases, especially when the number of cases is limited. Analyzing exome sequencing data requires specific expertise, high computational resources and a reference variant database to identify pathogenic variants.We developed a database of variations collected from patients with Mendelian disorders, which is automatically populated thanks to an associated exome-sequencing pipeline. The pipeline is able to automatically identify, annotate and store insertions, deletions and mutations in the database. The resource is freely available online http://exome.tigem.it. The exome sequencing pipeline automates the analysis workflow (quality control and read trimming, mapping on reference genome, post-alignment processing, variation calling and annotation) using state-of-the-art software tools. The exome-sequencing pipeline has been designed to run on a computing cluster in order to analyse several samples simultaneously. The detected variants are annotated by the pipeline not only with the standard variant annotations (e.g. allele frequency in the general population, the predicted effect on gene product activity, etc.) but, more importantly, with allele frequencies across samples progressively collected in the database itself, stratified by Mendelian disorder.We aim at providing a resource for the genetic disease community to automatically analyse whole exome-sequencing samples with a standard and uniform analysis pipeline, thus collecting variant allele frequencies by disorder. This resource may become a valuable tool to help dissecting the genotype underlying the disease phenotype through an improved selection of putative patient-specific causative or phenotype-associated variations.

Project description:BackgroundTo facilitate the clinical implementation of genomic medicine by next-generation sequencing, it will be critically important to obtain accurate and consistent variant calls on personal genomes. Multiple software tools for variant calling are available, but it is unclear how comparable these tools are or what their relative merits in real-world scenarios might be.MethodsWe sequenced 15 exomes from four families using commercial kits (Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform and Agilent SureSelect version 2 capture kit), with approximately 120X mean coverage. We analyzed the raw data using near-default parameters with five different alignment and variant-calling pipelines (SOAP, BWA-GATK, BWA-SNVer, GNUMAP, and BWA-SAMtools). We additionally sequenced a single whole genome using the sequencing and analysis pipeline from Complete Genomics (CG), with 95% of the exome region being covered by 20 or more reads per base. Finally, we validated 919 single-nucleotide variations (SNVs) and 841 insertions and deletions (indels), including similar fractions of GATK-only, SOAP-only, and shared calls, on the MiSeq platform by amplicon sequencing with approximately 5000X mean coverage.ResultsSNV concordance between five Illumina pipelines across all 15 exomes was 57.4%, while 0.5 to 5.1% of variants were called as unique to each pipeline. Indel concordance was only 26.8% between three indel-calling pipelines, even after left-normalizing and intervalizing genomic coordinates by 20 base pairs. There were 11% of CG variants falling within targeted regions in exome sequencing that were not called by any of the Illumina-based exome analysis pipelines. Based on targeted amplicon sequencing on the MiSeq platform, 97.1%, 60.2%, and 99.1% of the GATK-only, SOAP-only and shared SNVs could be validated, but only 54.0%, 44.6%, and 78.1% of the GATK-only, SOAP-only and shared indels could be validated. Additionally, our analysis of two families (one with four individuals and the other with seven), demonstrated additional accuracy gained in variant discovery by having access to genetic data from a multi-generational family.ConclusionsOur results suggest that more caution should be exercised in genomic medicine settings when analyzing individual genomes, including interpreting positive and negative findings with scrutiny, especially for indels. We advocate for renewed collection and sequencing of multi-generational families to increase the overall accuracy of whole genomes.

Dataset Information

Detailed comparison of two popular variant calling packages for exome and targeted exon studies.

Publications

Detailed comparison of two popular variant calling packages for exome and targeted exon studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets