Dataset Information

TADtool: visual parameter identification for TAD-calling algorithms.

ABSTRACT: Eukaryotic genomes are hierarchically organized into topologically associating domains (TADs). The computational identification of these domains and their associated properties critically depends on the choice of suitable parameters of TAD-calling algorithms. To reduce the element of trial-and-error in parameter selection, we have developed TADtool: an interactive plot to find robust TAD-calling parameters with immediate visual feedback. TADtool allows the direct export of TADs called with a chosen set of parameters for two of the most common TAD calling algorithms: directionality and insulation index. It can be used as an intuitive, standalone application or as a Python package for maximum flexibility.

Availability and implementation

TADtool is available as a Python package from GitHub (https://github.com/vaquerizaslab/tadtool) or can be installed directly via PyPI, the Python package index (tadtool).

Contact

kai.kruse@mpi-muenster.mpg.de, jmv@mpi-muenster.mpg.deSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUBMITTER: Kruse K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5048066 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

TADtool: visual parameter identification for TAD-calling algorithms.

Kruse Kai K Hug Clemens B CB Hernández-Rodríguez Benjamín B Vaquerizas Juan M JM

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 20160617 20

Eukaryotic genomes are hierarchically organized into topologically associating domains (TADs). The computational identification of these domains and their associated properties critically depends on the choice of suitable parameters of TAD-calling algorithms. To reduce the element of trial-and-error in parameter selection, we have developed TADtool: an interactive plot to find robust TAD-calling parameters with immediate visual feedback. TADtool allows the direct export of TADs called with a cho ...[more]

PMID: 27318199

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Many Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) calling programs have been developed to identify Single Nucleotide Variations (SNVs) in next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. However, low sequencing coverage presents challenges to accurate SNV identification, especially in single-sample data. Moreover, commonly used SNP calling programs usually include several metrics in their output files for each potential SNP. These metrics are highly correlated in complex patterns, making it extremely difficult to select SNPs for further experimental validations. RESULTS: To explore solutions to the above challenges, we compare the performance of four SNP calling algorithm, SOAPsnp, Atlas-SNP2, SAMtools, and GATK, in a low-coverage single-sample sequencing dataset. Without any post-output filtering, SOAPsnp calls more SNVs than the other programs since it has fewer internal filtering criteria. Atlas-SNP2 has stringent internal filtering criteria; thus it reports the least number of SNVs. The numbers of SNVs called by GATK and SAMtools fall between SOAPsnp and Atlas-SNP2. Moreover, we explore the values of key metrics related to SNVs' quality in each algorithm and use them as post-output filtering criteria to filter out low quality SNVs. Under different coverage cutoff values, we compare four algorithms and calculate the empirical positive calling rate and sensitivity. Our results show that: 1) the overall agreement of the four calling algorithms is low, especially in non-dbSNPs; 2) the agreement of the four algorithms is similar when using different coverage cutoffs, except that the non-dbSNPs agreement level tends to increase slightly with increasing coverage; 3) SOAPsnp, SAMtools, and GATK have a higher empirical calling rate for dbSNPs compared to non-dbSNPs; and 4) overall, GATK and Atlas-SNP2 have a relatively higher positive calling rate and sensitivity, but GATK calls more SNVs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the agreement between different calling algorithms is relatively low. Thus, more caution should be used in choosing algorithms, setting filtering parameters, and designing validation studies. For reliable SNV calling results, we recommend that users employ more than one algorithm and use metrics related to calling quality and coverage as filtering criteria.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

TADtool: visual parameter identification for TAD-calling algorithms.

Availability and implementation

Contact

Publications

TADtool: visual parameter identification for TAD-calling algorithms.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets