Dataset Information

NanoSNP: a progressive and haplotype-aware SNP caller on low-coverage nanopore sequencing data.

ABSTRACT:

Motivation

Oxford Nanopore sequencing has great potential and advantages in population-scale studies. Due to the cost of sequencing, the depth of whole-genome sequencing for per individual sample must be small. However, the existing single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) callers are aimed at high-coverage Nanopore sequencing reads. Detecting the SNP variants on low-coverage Nanopore sequencing data is still a challenging problem.

Results

We developed a novel deep learning-based SNP calling method, NanoSNP, to identify the SNP sites (excluding short indels) based on low-coverage Nanopore sequencing reads. In this method, we design a multi-step, multi-scale and haplotype-aware SNP detection pipeline. First, the pileup model in NanoSNP utilizes the naive pileup feature to predict a subset of SNP sites with a Bi-long short-term memory (LSTM) network. These SNP sites are phased and used to divide the low-coverage Nanopore reads into different haplotypes. Finally, the long-range haplotype feature and short-range pileup feature are extracted from each haplotype. The haplotype model combines two features and predicts the genotype for the candidate site using a Bi-LSTM network. To evaluate the performance of NanoSNP, we compared NanoSNP with Clair, Clair3, Pepper-DeepVariant and NanoCaller on the low-coverage (∼16×) Nanopore sequencing reads. We also performed cross-genome testing on six human genomes HG002-HG007, respectively. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that NanoSNP outperforms Clair, Pepper-DeepVariant and NanoCaller in identifying SNPs on low-coverage Nanopore sequencing data, including the difficult-to-map regions and major histocompatibility complex regions in the human genome. NanoSNP is comparable to Clair3 when the coverage exceeds 16×.

Availability and implementation

https://github.com/huangnengCSU/NanoSNP.git.

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUBMITTER: Huang N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9822538 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

NanoSNP: a progressive and haplotype-aware SNP caller on low-coverage nanopore sequencing data.

Huang Neng N Xu Minghua M Nie Fan F Ni Peng P Xiao Chuan-Le CL Luo Feng F Wang Jianxin J

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 20230101 1

<h4>Motivation</h4>Oxford Nanopore sequencing has great potential and advantages in population-scale studies. Due to the cost of sequencing, the depth of whole-genome sequencing for per individual sample must be small. However, the existing single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) callers are aimed at high-coverage Nanopore sequencing reads. Detecting the SNP variants on low-coverage Nanopore sequencing data is still a challenging problem.<h4>Results</h4>We developed a novel deep learning-based SNP ...[more]

PMID: 36548365

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.

Dataset Information

NanoSNP: a progressive and haplotype-aware SNP caller on low-coverage nanopore sequencing data.

Motivation

Results

Availability and implementation

Supplementary information

Publications

NanoSNP: a progressive and haplotype-aware SNP caller on low-coverage nanopore sequencing data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets