Evaluation of somatic copy number variation detection by NGS techonologies and bioinformatics tools
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJNA873703 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Similar Datasets
Project description:We have benchmarked the performance of cancer CNV calling by six most recent software tools on their detection accuracy, sensitivity, and reproducibility. We also explored the consistency of CNV calling across different orthogonal technologies, including optical mapping and microarrays. Using consensus results from six CNV callers and confirmation from three orthogonal methods, we established a high-confidence CNV call set for the reference sample.
2023-08-25 | GSE212051 | GEO
Project description:Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has become a standard method for detecting genetic variants in human diseases. Although the primary use of WES data has been the identification of single nucleotide variations and indels, these data also offer a possibility of detecting copy number variations (CNVs) at high resolution. However, WES data have uneven read coverage along the genome owing to the target capture step, and the development of a robust WES-based CNV tool is challenging. Here, we evaluate six WES somatic CNV detection tools: ADTEx, CONTRA, Control-FREEC, EXCAVATOR, ExomeCNV and Varscan2. Using WES data from 50 kidney chromophobe, 50 bladder urothelial carcinoma, and 50 stomach adenocarcinoma patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas, we compared the CNV calls from the six tools with a reference CNV set that was identified by both single nucleotide polymorphism array 6.0 and whole-genome sequencing data. We found that these algorithms gave highly variable results: visual inspection reveals significant differences between the WES-based segmentation profiles and the reference profile, as well as among the WES-based profiles. Using a 50% overlap criterion, 13-77% of WES CNV calls were covered by CNVs from the reference set, up to 21% of the copy gains were called as losses or vice versa, and dramatic differences in CNV sizes and CNV numbers were observed. Overall, ADTEx and EXCAVATOR had the best performance with relatively high precision and sensitivity. We suggest that the current algorithms for somatic CNV detection from WES data are limited in their performance and that more robust algorithms are needed.
| S-EPMC6283367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The detection of copy-number variations (CNVs) from NGS data is underexploited as chip-based or targeted techniques are still commonly used. We assessed the performances of a workflow centered on CANOES, a bioinformatics tool based on read depth information. We applied our workflow to gene panel (GP) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) data, and compared CNV calls to quantitative multiplex PCR of short fluorescent fragments (QMSPF) or array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) results. From GP data of 3776 samples, we reached an overall positive predictive value (PPV) of 87.8%. This dataset included a complete comprehensive QMPSF comparison of four genes (60 exons) on which we obtained 100% sensitivity and specificity. From WES data, we first compared 137 samples with aCGH and filtered comparable events (exonic CNVs encompassing enough aCGH probes) and obtained an 87.25% sensitivity. The overall PPV was 86.4% following the targeted confirmation of candidate CNVs from 1056 additional WES. In addition, our CANOES-centered workflow on WES data allowed the detection of CNVs with a resolution of single exons, allowing the detection of CNVs that were missed by aCGH. Overall, switching to an NGS-only approach should be cost-effective as it allows a reduction in overall costs together with likely stable diagnostic yields. Our bioinformatics pipeline is available at: https://gitlab.bioinfo-diag.fr/nc4gpm/canoes-centered-workflow .
| S-EPMC7852510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecently copy number variation (CNV) has gained considerable interest as a type of genomic/genetic variation that plays an important role in disease susceptibility. Advances in sequencing technology have created an opportunity for detecting CNVs more accurately. Recently whole exome sequencing (WES) has become primary strategy for sequencing patient samples and study their genomics aberrations. However, compared to whole genome sequencing, WES introduces more biases and noise that make CNV detection very challenging. Additionally, tumors' complexity makes the detection of cancer specific CNVs even more difficult. Although many CNV detection tools have been developed since introducing NGS data, there are few tools for somatic CNV detection for WES data in cancer.ResultsIn this study, we evaluated the performance of the most recent and commonly used CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer to address their limitations and provide guidelines for developing new ones. We focused on the tools that have been designed or have the ability to detect cancer somatic aberrations. We compared the performance of the tools in terms of sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) using real data and simulated data. Comparative analysis of the results of the tools showed that there is a low consensus among the tools in calling CNVs. Using real data, tools show moderate sensitivity (~50% - ~80%), fair specificity (~70% - ~94%) and poor FDRs (~27% - ~60%). Also, using simulated data we observed that increasing the coverage more than 10× in exonic regions does not improve the detection power of the tools significantly.ConclusionsThe limited performance of the current CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer indicates the need for developing more efficient and precise CNV detection methods. Due to the complexity of tumors and high level of noise and biases in WES data, employing advanced novel segmentation, normalization and de-noising techniques that are designed specifically for cancer data is necessary. Also, CNV detection development suffers from the lack of a gold standard for performance evaluation. Finally, developing tools with user-friendly user interfaces and visualization features can enhance CNV studies for a broader range of users.
| S-EPMC5452530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Targeted next-generation-sequencing (NGS) panels have largely replaced Sanger sequencing in clinical diagnostics. They allow for the detection of copy-number variations (CNVs) in addition to single-nucleotide variants and small insertions/deletions. However, existing computational CNV detection methods have shortcomings regarding accuracy, quality control (QC), incidental findings, and user-friendliness. We developed panelcn.MOPS, a novel pipeline for detecting CNVs in targeted NGS panel data. Using data from 180 samples, we compared panelcn.MOPS with five state-of-the-art methods. With panelcn.MOPS leading the field, most methods achieved comparably high accuracy. panelcn.MOPS reliably detected CNVs ranging in size from part of a region of interest (ROI), to whole genes, which may comprise all ROIs investigated in a given sample. The latter is enabled by analyzing reads from all ROIs of the panel, but presenting results exclusively for user-selected genes, thus avoiding incidental findings. Additionally, panelcn.MOPS offers QC criteria not only for samples, but also for individual ROIs within a sample, which increases the confidence in called CNVs. panelcn.MOPS is freely available both as R package and standalone software with graphical user interface that is easy to use for clinical geneticists without any programming experience. panelcn.MOPS combines high sensitivity and specificity with user-friendliness rendering it highly suitable for routine clinical diagnostics.
| S-EPMC5518446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although germline copy-number variants (CNVs) are the genetic cause of multiple hereditary diseases, detecting them from targeted next-generation sequencing data (NGS) remains a challenge. Existing tools perform well for large CNVs but struggle with single and multi-exon alterations. The aim of this work is to evaluate CNV calling tools working on gene panel NGS data and their suitability as a screening step before orthogonal confirmation in genetic diagnostics strategies. Five tools (DECoN, CoNVaDING, panelcn.MOPS, ExomeDepth, and CODEX2) were tested against four genetic diagnostics datasets (two in-house and two external) for a total of 495 samples with 231 single and multi-exon validated CNVs. The evaluation was performed using the default and sensitivity-optimized parameters. Results showed that most tools were highly sensitive and specific, but the performance was dataset dependant. When evaluating them in our diagnostics scenario, DECoN and panelcn.MOPS detected all CNVs with the exception of one mosaic CNV missed by DECoN. However, DECoN outperformed panelcn.MOPS specificity achieving values greater than 0.90 when using the optimized parameters. In our in-house datasets, DECoN and panelcn.MOPS showed the highest performance for CNV screening before orthogonal confirmation. Benchmarking and optimization code is freely available at https://github.com/TranslationalBioinformaticsIGTP/CNVbenchmarkeR .
| S-EPMC7784926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Liquid biopsies, i.e. the analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), are evolving into promising clinical tools. Indeed, a plethora of liquid biopsy technologies to deduce non-invasively characteristics of the tumor genome from the peripheral blood have been developed over the last few years. For example, liquid biopsies have been used to assess the tumor burden, to monitor the evolution of tumor genomes, to unravel mechanisms of resistance, to establish the tumor heterogeneity, and for the identification of prognostic and predictive markers. In this review we focus on methods to establish genome-wide profiles of somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) from plasma DNA and show how they provide novel insights into the biology of cancer and their impact on the management of patients.
| S-EPMC5528970 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:With the rapid development of whole exome sequencing (WES), an increasing number of tools are being proposed for copy number variation (CNV) detection based on this technique. However, no comprehensive guide is available for the use of these tools in clinical settings, which renders them inapplicable in practice. To resolve this problem, in this study, we evaluated the performances of four WES-based CNV tools, and established a guideline for the recommendation of a suitable tool according to the application requirements. RESULTS:In this study, first, we selected four WES-based CNV detection tools: CoNIFER, cn.MOPS, CNVkit and exomeCopy. Then, we evaluated their performances in terms of three aspects: sensitivity and specificity, overlapping consistency and computational costs. From this evaluation, we obtained four main results: (1) The sensitivity increases and subsequently stabilizes as the coverage or CNV size increases, while the specificity decreases. (2) CoNIFER performs better for CNV insertions than for CNV deletions, while the remaining tools exhibit the opposite trend. (3) CoNIFER, cn.MOPS and CNVkit realize satisfactory overlapping consistency, which indicates their results are trustworthy. (4) CoNIFER has the best space complexity and cn.MOPS has the best time complexity among these four tools. Finally, we established a guideline for tools' usage according to these results. CONCLUSION:No available tool performs excellently under all conditions; however, some tools perform excellently in some scenarios. Users can obtain a CNV tool recommendation from our paper according to the targeted CNV size, the CNV type or computational costs of their projects, as presented in Table 1, which is helpful even for users with limited knowledge of computer science.
| S-EPMC7059689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationWhole exome and gene panel sequencing are increasingly used for oncological diagnostics. To investigate the accuracy of SCNA detection algorithms on simulated and clinical tumor samples, the precision and sensitivity of four SCNA callers were measured using 50 simulated whole exome and 50 simulated targeted gene panel datasets, and using 119 TCGA tumor samples for which SNP array data were available.ResultsOn synthetic exome and panel data, VarScan2 mostly called false positives, whereas Control-FREEC was precise (>90% correct calls) at the cost of low sensitivity (<40% detected). ONCOCNV was slightly less precise on gene panel data, with similarly low sensitivity. This could be explained by low sensitivity for amplifications and high precision for deletions. Surprisingly, these results were not strongly affected by moderate tumor impurities; only contaminations with more than 60% non-cancerous cells resulted in strongly declining precision and sensitivity. On the 119 clinical samples, both Control-FREEC and CNVkit called 71.8% and 94%, respectively, of the SCNAs found by the SNP arrays, but with a considerable amount of false positives (precision 29% and 4.9%).DiscussionWhole exome and targeted gene panel methods by design limit the precision of SCNA callers, making them prone to false positives. SCNA calls cannot easily be integrated in clinical pipelines that use data from targeted capture-based sequencing. If used at all, they need to be cross-validated using orthogonal methods.Availability and implementationScripts are provided as supplementary information.Contactgunther.jansen@molecularhealth.com.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC5870863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panels are increasingly being used in clinical genomics to increase capacity, throughput and affordability of gene testing. Identifying whole exon deletions or duplications (termed exon copy number variants, 'exon CNVs') in exon-targeted NGS panels has proved challenging, particularly for single exon CNVs. Methods: We developed a tool for the Detection of Exon Copy Number variants (DECoN), which is optimised for analysis of exon-targeted NGS panels in the clinical setting. We evaluated DECoN performance using 96 samples with independently validated exon CNV data. We performed simulations to evaluate DECoN detection performance of single exon CNVs and to evaluate performance using different coverage levels and sample numbers. Finally, we implemented DECoN in a clinical laboratory that tests BRCA1 and BRCA2 with the TruSight Cancer Panel (TSCP). We used DECoN to analyse 1,919 samples, validating exon CNV detections by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Results: In the evaluation set, DECoN achieved 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity for BRCA exon CNVs, including identification of 8 single exon CNVs. DECoN also identified 14/15 exon CNVs in 8 other genes. Simulations of all possible BRCA single exon CNVs gave a mean sensitivity of 98% for deletions and 95% for duplications. DECoN performance remained excellent with different levels of coverage and sample numbers; sensitivity and specificity was >98% with the typical NGS run parameters. In the clinical pipeline, DECoN automatically analyses pools of 48 samples at a time, taking 24 minutes per pool, on average. DECoN detected 24 BRCA exon CNVs, of which 23 were confirmed by MLPA, giving a false discovery rate of 4%. Specificity was 99.7%. Conclusions: DECoN is a fast, accurate, exon CNV detection tool readily implementable in research and clinical NGS pipelines. It has high sensitivity and specificity and acceptable false discovery rate. DECoN is freely available at www.icr.ac.uk/decon.
| S-EPMC5409526 | biostudies-literature