Dataset Information

Comparison of insertion/deletion calling algorithms on human next-generation sequencing data.

ABSTRACT: Insertions/deletions (indels) are the second most common type of genomic variant and the most common type of structural variant. Identification of indels in next generation sequencing data is a challenge, and algorithms commonly used for indel detection have not been compared on a research cohort of human subject genomic data. Guidelines for the optimal detection of biologically significant indels are limited. We analyzed three sets of human next generation sequencing data (48 samples of a 200 gene target exon sequencing, 45 samples of whole exome sequencing, and 2 samples of whole genome sequencing) using three algorithms for indel detection (Pindel, Genome Analysis Tool Kit's UnifiedGenotyper and HaplotypeCaller).We observed variation in indel calls across the three algorithms. The intersection of the three tools comprised only 5.70% of targeted exon, 19.52% of whole exome, and 14.25% of whole genome indel calls. The majority of the discordant indels were of lower read depth and likely to be false positives. When software parameters were kept consistent across the three targets, HaplotypeCaller produced the most reliable results. Pindel results did not validate well without adjustments to parameters to account for varied read depth and number of samples per run. Adjustments to Pindel's M (minimum support for event) parameter improved both concordance and validation rates. Pindel was able to identify large deletions that surpassed the length capabilities of the GATK algorithms.Despite the observed variability in indel identification, we discerned strengths among the individual algorithms on specific data sets. This allowed us to suggest best practices for indel calling. Pindel's low validation rate of indel calls made in targeted exon sequencing suggests that HaplotypeCaller is better suited for short indels and multi-sample runs in targets with very high read depth. Pindel allows for optimization of minimum support for events and is best used for detection of larger indels at lower read depths.

SUBMITTER: Ghoneim DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4265454 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of insertion/deletion calling algorithms on human next-generation sequencing data.

Ghoneim Dalia H DH Myers Jason R JR Tuttle Emily E Paciorkowski Alex R AR

BMC research notes 20141201

<h4>Background</h4>Insertions/deletions (indels) are the second most common type of genomic variant and the most common type of structural variant. Identification of indels in next generation sequencing data is a challenge, and algorithms commonly used for indel detection have not been compared on a research cohort of human subject genomic data. Guidelines for the optimal detection of biologically significant indels are limited. We analyzed three sets of human next generation sequencing data (48 ...[more]

PMID: 25435282

Similar Datasets

Project description:Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are widely used in genome-wide association studies and population genetics analyses. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become convenient, and many SNP-calling pipelines have been developed for human NGS data. We took advantage of a gap knowledge in selecting the appropriated SNP calling pipeline to handle with high-throughput NGS data. To fill this gap, we studied and compared seven SNP calling pipelines, which include 16GT, genome analysis toolkit (GATK), Bcftools-single (Bcftools single sample mode), Bcftools-multiple (Bcftools multiple sample mode), VarScan2-single (VarScan2 single sample mode), VarScan2-multiple (VarScan2 multiple sample mode) and Freebayes pipelines, using 96 NGS data with the different depth gradients of approximately 5X, 10X, 20X, 30X, 40X, and 50X coverage from 16 Rhode Island Red chickens. The sixteen chickens were also genotyped with a 50K SNP array, and the sensitivity and specificity of each pipeline were assessed by comparison to the results of SNP arrays. For each pipeline, except Freebayes, the number of detected SNPs increased as the input read depth increased. In comparison with other pipelines, 16GT, followed by Bcftools-multiple, obtained the most SNPs when the input coverage exceeded 10X, and Bcftools-multiple obtained the most when the input was 5X and 10X. The sensitivity and specificity of each pipeline increased with increasing input. Bcftools-multiple had the highest sensitivity numerically when the input ranged from 5X to 30X, and 16GT showed the highest sensitivity when the input was 40X and 50X. Bcftools-multiple also had the highest specificity, followed by GATK, at almost all input levels. For most calling pipelines, there were no obvious changes in SNP numbers, sensitivities or specificities beyond 20X. In conclusion, (1) if only SNPs were detected, the sequencing depth did not need to exceed 20X; (2) the Bcftools-multiple may be the best choice for detecting SNPs from chicken NGS data, but for a single sample or sequencing depth greater than 20X, 16GT was recommended. Our findings provide a reference for researchers to select suitable pipelines to obtain SNPs from the NGS data of chickens or nonhuman animals.

Dataset Information

Comparison of insertion/deletion calling algorithms on human next-generation sequencing data.

Publications

Comparison of insertion/deletion calling algorithms on human next-generation sequencing data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets