Dataset Information

Ximmer: a system for improving accuracy and consistency of CNV calling from exome data.

ABSTRACT: Background:While exome and targeted next-generation DNA sequencing are primarily used for detecting single nucleotide changes and small indels, detection of copy number variants (CNVs) can provide highly valuable additional information from the data. Although there are dozens of exome CNV detection methods available, these are often difficult to use, and accuracy varies unpredictably between and within datasets. Findings:We present Ximmer, a tool that supports an end-to-end process for evaluating, tuning, and running analysis methods for detection of CNVs in germline samples. Ximmer includes a simulation framework, implementations of several commonly used CNV detection methods, and a visualization and curation tool that together enable interactive exploration and quality control of CNV results. Using Ximmer, we comprehensively evaluate CNV detection on four datasets using five different detection methods. We show that application of Ximmer can improve accuracy and aid in quality control of CNV detection results. In addition, Ximmer can be used to run analyses and explore CNV results in exome data. Conclusions:Ximmer offers a comprehensive tool and method for applying and improving accuracy of CNV detection methods for exome data.

SUBMITTER: Sadedin SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6177737 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ximmer: a system for improving accuracy and consistency of CNV calling from exome data.

Sadedin Simon P SP Ellis Justine A JA Masters Seth L SL Oshlack Alicia A

GigaScience 20181001 10

<h4>Background</h4>While exome and targeted next-generation DNA sequencing are primarily used for detecting single nucleotide changes and small indels, detection of copy number variants (CNVs) can provide highly valuable additional information from the data. Although there are dozens of exome CNV detection methods available, these are often difficult to use, and accuracy varies unpredictably between and within datasets.<h4>Findings</h4>We present Ximmer, a tool that supports an end-to-end proces ...[more]

PMID: 30192941

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundINDELs, especially those disrupting protein-coding regions of the genome, have been strongly associated with human diseases. However, there are still many errors with INDEL variant calling, driven by library preparation, sequencing biases, and algorithm artifacts.MethodsWe characterized whole genome sequencing (WGS), whole exome sequencing (WES), and PCR-free sequencing data from the same samples to investigate the sources of INDEL errors. We also developed a classification scheme based on the coverage and composition to rank high and low quality INDEL calls. We performed a large-scale validation experiment on 600 loci, and find high-quality INDELs to have a substantially lower error rate than low-quality INDELs (7% vs. 51%).ResultsSimulation and experimental data show that assembly based callers are significantly more sensitive and robust for detecting large INDELs (>5 bp) than alignment based callers, consistent with published data. The concordance of INDEL detection between WGS and WES is low (53%), and WGS data uniquely identifies 10.8-fold more high-quality INDELs. The validation rate for WGS-specific INDELs is also much higher than that for WES-specific INDELs (84% vs. 57%), and WES misses many large INDELs. In addition, the concordance for INDEL detection between standard WGS and PCR-free sequencing is 71%, and standard WGS data uniquely identifies 6.3-fold more low-quality INDELs. Furthermore, accurate detection with Scalpel of heterozygous INDELs requires 1.2-fold higher coverage than that for homozygous INDELs. Lastly, homopolymer A/T INDELs are a major source of low-quality INDEL calls, and they are highly enriched in the WES data.ConclusionsOverall, we show that accuracy of INDEL detection with WGS is much greater than WES even in the targeted region. We calculated that 60X WGS depth of coverage from the HiSeq platform is needed to recover 95% of INDELs detected by Scalpel. While this is higher than current sequencing practice, the deeper coverage may save total project costs because of the greater accuracy and sensitivity. Finally, we investigate sources of INDEL errors (for example, capture deficiency, PCR amplification, homopolymers) with various data that will serve as a guideline to effectively reduce INDEL errors in genome sequencing.

Dataset Information

Ximmer: a system for improving accuracy and consistency of CNV calling from exome data.

Publications

Ximmer: a system for improving accuracy and consistency of CNV calling from exome data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets