| Literature DB >> 21552272 |
Dalila Pinto1, Katayoon Darvishi, Xinghua Shi, Diana Rajan, Diane Rigler, Tom Fitzgerald, Anath C Lionel, Bhooma Thiruvahindrapuram, Jeffrey R Macdonald, Ryan Mills, Aparna Prasad, Kristin Noonan, Susan Gribble, Elena Prigmore, Patricia K Donahoe, Richard S Smith, Ji Hyeon Park, Matthew E Hurles, Nigel P Carter, Charles Lee, Stephen W Scherer, Lars Feuk.
Abstract
We have systematically compared copy number variant (CNV) detection on eleven microarrays to evaluate data quality and CNV calling, reproducibility, concordance across array platforms and laboratory sites, breakpoint accuracy and analysis tool variability. Different analytic tools applied to the same raw data typically yield CNV calls with <50% concordance. Moreover, reproducibility in replicate experiments is <70% for most platforms. Nevertheless, these findings should not preclude detection of large CNVs for clinical diagnostic purposes because large CNVs with poor reproducibility are found primarily in complex genomic regions and would typically be removed by standard clinical data curation. The striking differences between CNV calls from different platforms and analytic tools highlight the importance of careful assessment of experimental design in discovery and association studies and of strict data curation and filtering in diagnostics. The CNV resource presented here allows independent data evaluation and provides a means to benchmark new algorithms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21552272 PMCID: PMC3270583 DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Biotechnol ISSN: 1087-0156 Impact factor: 54.908