Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJEB15385 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ConfidentRegions_1.bed.gz | Bed | |||
| ConfidentRegions_1.bed.gz.tbi | Bed | |||
| NA12878.without_chr_in_contigname.vcf.gz | Vcf | |||
| NA12878.without_chr_in_contigname.vcf.gz.tbi | Vcf | |||
| ConfidentRegions_2.bed.gz | Bed |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 8 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:Illumina Platinum Genomes calls for NA12877 and NA12878 against GRCh38
2016-09-13 | PRJEB15384 | EVA
Project description:Illumina Platinum Genomes calls for NA12877 and NA12878 against GRCh37
2016-09-13 | PRJEB15385 | EVA
Project description:In principle, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of the human genome even at low coverage offers higher resolution for genomic copy number variation (CNV) detection compared to array-based technologies, which is currently the first-tier approach in clinical cytogenetics. There are, however, obstacles in replacing array-based CNV detection with that of low-coverage WGS such as cost, turnaround time, and lack of systematic performance comparisons. With technological advances in WGS in terms of library preparation, instrument platforms, and data analysis algorithms, obstacles imposed by cost and turnaround time are fading. However, a systematic performance comparison between array and low-coverage WGS-based CNV detection has yet to be performed. Here, we compared the CNV detection capabilities between WGS (short-insert, 3kb-, and 5kb-mate-pair libraries) at 1X, 3X, and 5X coverages and standardly used high-resolution arrays in the genome of 1000-Genomes-Project CEU genome NA12878. CNV detection was performed using standard analysis methods, and the results were then compared to a list of Gold Standard NA12878 CNVs distilled from the 1000-Genomes Project. Overall, low-coverage WGS is able to detect drastically more (approximately 5 fold more on average) Gold Standard CNVs compared to arrays and is accompanied with fewer CNV calls without secondary validation. Furthermore, we also show that WGS (at ≥1X coverage) is able to detect all seven validated deletions larger than 100 kb in the NA12878 genome whereas only one of such deletions is detected in most arrays. Finally, we show that the much larger 15 Mbp Cri-du-chat deletion can be clearly seen at even 1X coverage from short-insert WGS.
2018-06-26 | GSE105092 | GEO
Project description:Background: High-resolution microarray technology is routinely used in basic research and clinical practice to efficiently detect copy number variants (CNVs) across the entire human genome. A new generation of arrays combining high probe densities with optimized designs will comprise essential tools for genome analysis in the coming years. We systematically compared the genome-wide CNV detection power of all 17 available array designs from the Affymetrix, Agilent, and Illumina platforms by hybridizing the well-characterized genome of 1000 Genomes Project subject NA12878 to all arrays, and performing data analysis using both manufacturer-recommended and platform-independent software. We benchmarked the resulting CNV call sets from each array using a gold standard set of CNVs for this genome derived from 1000 Genomes Project whole genome sequencing data. Results: The arrays tested comprise both SNP and aCGH platforms with varying designs and contain between ~0.5 to ~4.6 million probes. Across the arrays CNV detection varied widely in number of CNV calls (4 - 489), CNV size range (~40 bp to ~8 Mbp), and percentage of non-validated CNVs (0 - 86 %). We discovered strikingly strong effects of specific array design principles on performance. For example, some SNP array designs with the largest numbers of probes and extensive exonic coverage produced a considerable number of CNV calls that could not be validated, compared to designs with probe numbers that are sometimes an order of magnitude smaller. This effect was only partially ameliorated using different analysis software and optimizing data analysis parameters. Conclusions: High-resolution microarrays will continue to be used as reliable, cost- and time-efficient tools for CNV analysis. However, different applications tolerate different limitations in CNV detection. Our study quantified how these arrays differ in total number and size range of detected CNVs as well as sensitivity, and determined how each array balances these attributes. This analysis will inform appropriate array selection for future CNV studies, and allow better assessment of the CNV-analytical power of both published and ongoing array-based genomics studies. Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of concurrent use of multiple analysis algorithms and independent experimental validation in array-based CNV detection studies. array Comparative Genome Hybridization of NA12878 versus NA10851 on Agilent platform
2017-03-23 | GSE96898 | GEO
Project description:Background: High-resolution microarray technology is routinely used in basic research and clinical practice to efficiently detect copy number variants (CNVs) across the entire human genome. A new generation of arrays combining high probe densities with optimized designs will comprise essential tools for genome analysis in the coming years. We systematically compared the genome-wide CNV detection power of all 17 available array designs from the Affymetrix, Agilent, and Illumina platforms by hybridizing the well-characterized genome of 1000 Genomes Project subject NA12878 to all arrays, and performing data analysis using both manufacturer-recommended and platform-independent software. We benchmarked the resulting CNV call sets from each array using a gold standard set of CNVs for this genome derived from 1000 Genomes Project whole genome sequencing data. Results: The arrays tested comprise both SNP and aCGH platforms with varying designs and contain between ~0.5 to ~4.6 million probes. Across the arrays CNV detection varied widely in number of CNV calls (4 - 489), CNV size range (~40 bp to ~8 Mbp), and percentage of non-validated CNVs (0 - 86 %). We discovered strikingly strong effects of specific array design principles on performance. For example, some SNP array designs with the largest numbers of probes and extensive exonic coverage produced a considerable number of CNV calls that could not be validated, compared to designs with probe numbers that are sometimes an order of magnitude smaller. This effect was only partially ameliorated using different analysis software and optimizing data analysis parameters. Conclusions: High-resolution microarrays will continue to be used as reliable, cost- and time-efficient tools for CNV analysis. However, different applications tolerate different limitations in CNV detection. Our study quantified how these arrays differ in total number and size range of detected CNVs as well as sensitivity, and determined how each array balances these attributes. This analysis will inform appropriate array selection for future CNV studies, and allow better assessment of the CNV-analytical power of both published and ongoing array-based genomics studies. Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of concurrent use of multiple analysis algorithms and independent experimental validation in array-based CNV detection studies. array Comparative Genome Hybridization of NA12878 versus NA10851 on Agilent platform
2017-03-23 | GSE96906 | GEO
Project description:Background: High-resolution microarray technology is routinely used in basic research and clinical practice to efficiently detect copy number variants (CNVs) across the entire human genome. A new generation of arrays combining high probe densities with optimized designs will comprise essential tools for genome analysis in the coming years. We systematically compared the genome-wide CNV detection power of all 17 available array designs from the Affymetrix, Agilent, and Illumina platforms by hybridizing the well-characterized genome of 1000 Genomes Project subject NA12878 to all arrays, and performing data analysis using both manufacturer-recommended and platform-independent software. We benchmarked the resulting CNV call sets from each array using a gold standard set of CNVs for this genome derived from 1000 Genomes Project whole genome sequencing data. Results: The arrays tested comprise both SNP and aCGH platforms with varying designs and contain between ~0.5 to ~4.6 million probes. Across the arrays CNV detection varied widely in number of CNV calls (4 - 489), CNV size range (~40 bp to ~8 Mbp), and percentage of non-validated CNVs (0 - 86 %). We discovered strikingly strong effects of specific array design principles on performance. For example, some SNP array designs with the largest numbers of probes and extensive exonic coverage produced a considerable number of CNV calls that could not be validated, compared to designs with probe numbers that are sometimes an order of magnitude smaller. This effect was only partially ameliorated using different analysis software and optimizing data analysis parameters. Conclusions: High-resolution microarrays will continue to be used as reliable, cost- and time-efficient tools for CNV analysis. However, different applications tolerate different limitations in CNV detection. Our study quantified how these arrays differ in total number and size range of detected CNVs as well as sensitivity, and determined how each array balances these attributes. This analysis will inform appropriate array selection for future CNV studies, and allow better assessment of the CNV-analytical power of both published and ongoing array-based genomics studies. Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of concurrent use of multiple analysis algorithms and independent experimental validation in array-based CNV detection studies. array Comparative Genome Hybridization of NA12878 versus NA10851 on Agilent platform
2017-03-23 | GSE96905 | GEO
Project description:Background: High-resolution microarray technology is routinely used in basic research and clinical practice to efficiently detect copy number variants (CNVs) across the entire human genome. A new generation of arrays combining high probe densities with optimized designs will comprise essential tools for genome analysis in the coming years. We systematically compared the genome-wide CNV detection power of all 17 available array designs from the Affymetrix, Agilent, and Illumina platforms by hybridizing the well-characterized genome of 1000 Genomes Project subject NA12878 to all arrays, and performing data analysis using both manufacturer-recommended and platform-independent software. We benchmarked the resulting CNV call sets from each array using a gold standard set of CNVs for this genome derived from 1000 Genomes Project whole genome sequencing data. Results: The arrays tested comprise both SNP and aCGH platforms with varying designs and contain between ~0.5 to ~4.6 million probes. Across the arrays CNV detection varied widely in number of CNV calls (4 - 489), CNV size range (~40 bp to ~8 Mbp), and percentage of non-validated CNVs (0 - 86 %). We discovered strikingly strong effects of specific array design principles on performance. For example, some SNP array designs with the largest numbers of probes and extensive exonic coverage produced a considerable number of CNV calls that could not be validated, compared to designs with probe numbers that are sometimes an order of magnitude smaller. This effect was only partially ameliorated using different analysis software and optimizing data analysis parameters. Conclusions: High-resolution microarrays will continue to be used as reliable, cost- and time-efficient tools for CNV analysis. However, different applications tolerate different limitations in CNV detection. Our study quantified how these arrays differ in total number and size range of detected CNVs as well as sensitivity, and determined how each array balances these attributes. This analysis will inform appropriate array selection for future CNV studies, and allow better assessment of the CNV-analytical power of both published and ongoing array-based genomics studies. Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of concurrent use of multiple analysis algorithms and independent experimental validation in array-based CNV detection studies. array Comparative Genome Hybridization of NA12878 versus NA10851 on Agilent platform
2017-03-23 | GSE96904 | GEO
Project description:Background: High-resolution microarray technology is routinely used in basic research and clinical practice to efficiently detect copy number variants (CNVs) across the entire human genome. A new generation of arrays combining high probe densities with optimized designs will comprise essential tools for genome analysis in the coming years. We systematically compared the genome-wide CNV detection power of all 17 available array designs from the Affymetrix, Agilent, and Illumina platforms by hybridizing the well-characterized genome of 1000 Genomes Project subject NA12878 to all arrays, and performing data analysis using both manufacturer-recommended and platform-independent software. We benchmarked the resulting CNV call sets from each array using a gold standard set of CNVs for this genome derived from 1000 Genomes Project whole genome sequencing data. Results: The arrays tested comprise both SNP and aCGH platforms with varying designs and contain between ~0.5 to ~4.6 million probes. Across the arrays CNV detection varied widely in number of CNV calls (4 - 489), CNV size range (~40 bp to ~8 Mbp), and percentage of non-validated CNVs (0 - 86 %). We discovered strikingly strong effects of specific array design principles on performance. For example, some SNP array designs with the largest numbers of probes and extensive exonic coverage produced a considerable number of CNV calls that could not be validated, compared to designs with probe numbers that are sometimes an order of magnitude smaller. This effect was only partially ameliorated using different analysis software and optimizing data analysis parameters. Conclusions: High-resolution microarrays will continue to be used as reliable, cost- and time-efficient tools for CNV analysis. However, different applications tolerate different limitations in CNV detection. Our study quantified how these arrays differ in total number and size range of detected CNVs as well as sensitivity, and determined how each array balances these attributes. This analysis will inform appropriate array selection for future CNV studies, and allow better assessment of the CNV-analytical power of both published and ongoing array-based genomics studies. Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of concurrent use of multiple analysis algorithms and independent experimental validation in array-based CNV detection studies. array Comparative Genome Hybridization of NA12878 versus NA10851 on Agilent platform
2017-03-23 | GSE96900 | GEO