MOTIVATION: Estimating the frequency distribution of copy number variants (CNVs) is an important aspect of the effort to characterize this new type of genetic variation. Currently, most studies report a strong skew toward low-frequency CNVs. In this article, our goal is to investigate the frequencies of CNVs. We employ a two-step procedure for the CNV frequency estimation process. We use family information a posteriori to select only the most reliable CNV regions, i.e. those showing high rates of Mendelian transmission. RESULTS: Our results suggest that the current skew toward low-frequency CNVs may not be representative of the true frequency distribution, but may be due, among other reasons, to the non-negligible false negative rates that characterize CNV detection methods. Moreover, false positives are also likely, as low-frequency CNVs are hard to detect with small sample sizes and technologies that are not ideally suited for their detection. Without appropriate validation methods, such as incorporation of biologically relevant information (for example, in our case, the transmission of heritable CNVs from parents to offspring), it is difficult to assess the validity of specific CNVs, and even harder to obtain reliable frequency estimates.
MOTIVATION: Estimating the frequency distribution of copy number variants (CNVs) is an important aspect of the effort to characterize this new type of genetic variation. Currently, most studies report a strong skew toward low-frequency CNVs. In this article, our goal is to investigate the frequencies of CNVs. We employ a two-step procedure for the CNV frequency estimation process. We use family information a posteriori to select only the most reliable CNV regions, i.e. those showing high rates of Mendelian transmission. RESULTS: Our results suggest that the current skew toward low-frequency CNVs may not be representative of the true frequency distribution, but may be due, among other reasons, to the non-negligible false negative rates that characterize CNV detection methods. Moreover, false positives are also likely, as low-frequency CNVs are hard to detect with small sample sizes and technologies that are not ideally suited for their detection. Without appropriate validation methods, such as incorporation of biologically relevant information (for example, in our case, the transmission of heritable CNVs from parents to offspring), it is difficult to assess the validity of specific CNVs, and even harder to obtain reliable frequency estimates.
Authors: Stanley Szefler; Scott Weiss; James Tonascia; N Franklin Adkinson; Bruce Bender; Reuben Cherniack; Michele Donithan; H William Kelly; Joseph Reisman; Gail G Shapiro; Alice L Sternberg; Robert Strunk; Virginia Taggart; Mark Van Natta; Robert Wise; Margaret Wu; Robert Zeiger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-10-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A John Iafrate; Lars Feuk; Miguel N Rivera; Marc L Listewnik; Patricia K Donahoe; Ying Qi; Stephen W Scherer; Charles Lee Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Raoul-Sam Daruwala; Archisman Rudra; Harry Ostrer; Robert Lucito; Michael Wigler; Bud Mishra Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-11-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Donald F Conrad; T Daniel Andrews; Nigel P Carter; Matthew E Hurles; Jonathan K Pritchard Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2005-12-04 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Steven A McCarroll; Tracy N Hadnott; George H Perry; Pardis C Sabeti; Michael C Zody; Jeffrey C Barrett; Stephanie Dallaire; Stacey B Gabriel; Charles Lee; Mark J Daly; David M Altshuler Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Mette Gilling; Jörn S Dullinger; Stefan Gesk; Simone Metzke-Heidemann; Reiner Siebert; Thomas Meyer; Karen Brondum-Nielsen; Niels Tommerup; Hans-Hilger Ropers; Zeynep Tümer; Vera M Kalscheuer; N Simon Thomas Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2006-03-17 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jonathan Sebat; B Lakshmi; Jennifer Troge; Joan Alexander; Janet Young; Pär Lundin; Susanne Månér; Hillary Massa; Megan Walker; Maoyen Chi; Nicholas Navin; Robert Lucito; John Healy; James Hicks; Kenny Ye; Andrew Reiner; T Conrad Gilliam; Barbara Trask; Nick Patterson; Anders Zetterberg; Michael Wigler Journal: Science Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Bin Xu; Abigail Woodroffe; Laura Rodriguez-Murillo; J Louw Roos; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Joseph A Gogos; Maria Karayiorgou Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205