Roland Wittler1, Cedric Chauve. 1. Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada. roland@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Structural variations in human genomes, such as insertions, deletion, or rearrangements, play an important role in cancer development. Next-Generation Sequencing technologies have been central in providing ways to detect such variations. Most existing methods however are limited to the analysis of a single genome, and it is only recently that the comparison of closely related genomes has been considered. In particular, a few recent works considered the analysis of data sets obtained by sequencing both tumor and healthy tissues of the same cancer patient. In that context, the goal is to detect variations that are specific to exactly one of the genomes, for example to differentiate between patient-specific and tumor-specific variations. This is a difficult task, especially when facing the additional challenge of the possible contamination of healthy tissues by tumor cells and conversely. RESULTS: In the current work, we analyzed a data set of paired-end short-reads, obtained by sequencing tumor tissues and healthy tissues, both from the same cancer patient. Based on a combinatorial notion of conflict between deletions, we show that in the tumor data, more deletions are predicted than there could actually be in a diploid genome. In contrast, the predictions for the data from normal tissues are almost conflict-free. We designed and applied a method, specific to the analysis of such pooled and contaminated data sets, to detect potential tumor-specific deletions. Our method takes the deletion calls from both data sets and assigns reads from the mixed tumor/normal data to the normal one with the goal to minimize the number of reads that need to be discarded to obtain a set of conflict-free deletion clusters. We observed that, on the specific data set we analyze, only a very small fraction of the reads needs to be discarded to obtain a set of consistent deletions. CONCLUSIONS: We present a framework based on a rigorous definition of consistency between deletions and the assumption that the tumor sample also contains normal cells. A combined analysis of both data sets based on this model allowed a consistent explanation of almost all data, providing a detailed picture of candidate patient- and tumor-specific deletions.
BACKGROUND: Structural variations in human genomes, such as insertions, deletion, or rearrangements, play an important role in cancer development. Next-Generation Sequencing technologies have been central in providing ways to detect such variations. Most existing methods however are limited to the analysis of a single genome, and it is only recently that the comparison of closely related genomes has been considered. In particular, a few recent works considered the analysis of data sets obtained by sequencing both tumor and healthy tissues of the same cancerpatient. In that context, the goal is to detect variations that are specific to exactly one of the genomes, for example to differentiate between patient-specific and tumor-specific variations. This is a difficult task, especially when facing the additional challenge of the possible contamination of healthy tissues by tumor cells and conversely. RESULTS: In the current work, we analyzed a data set of paired-end short-reads, obtained by sequencing tumor tissues and healthy tissues, both from the same cancerpatient. Based on a combinatorial notion of conflict between deletions, we show that in the tumor data, more deletions are predicted than there could actually be in a diploid genome. In contrast, the predictions for the data from normal tissues are almost conflict-free. We designed and applied a method, specific to the analysis of such pooled and contaminated data sets, to detect potential tumor-specific deletions. Our method takes the deletion calls from both data sets and assigns reads from the mixed tumor/normal data to the normal one with the goal to minimize the number of reads that need to be discarded to obtain a set of conflict-free deletion clusters. We observed that, on the specific data set we analyze, only a very small fraction of the reads needs to be discarded to obtain a set of consistent deletions. CONCLUSIONS: We present a framework based on a rigorous definition of consistency between deletions and the assumption that the tumor sample also contains normal cells. A combined analysis of both data sets based on this model allowed a consistent explanation of almost all data, providing a detailed picture of candidate patient- and tumor-specific deletions.
Authors: Stanislav Volik; Shaying Zhao; Koei Chin; John H Brebner; David R Herndon; Quanzhou Tao; David Kowbel; Guiqing Huang; Anna Lapuk; Wen-Lin Kuo; Gregg Magrane; Pieter De Jong; Joe W Gray; Colin Collins Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-06-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Eray Tuzun; Andrew J Sharp; Jeffrey A Bailey; Rajinder Kaul; V Anne Morrison; Lisa M Pertz; Eric Haugen; Hillary Hayden; Donna Albertson; Daniel Pinkel; Maynard V Olson; Evan E Eichler Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jan O Korbel; Alexander Eckehart Urban; Jason P Affourtit; Brian Godwin; Fabian Grubert; Jan Fredrik Simons; Philip M Kim; Dean Palejev; Nicholas J Carriero; Lei Du; Bruce E Taillon; Zhoutao Chen; Andrea Tanzer; A C Eugenia Saunders; Jianxiang Chi; Fengtang Yang; Nigel P Carter; Matthew E Hurles; Sherman M Weissman; Timothy T Harkins; Mark B Gerstein; Michael Egholm; Michael Snyder Journal: Science Date: 2007-09-27 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Timothy J Ley; Elaine R Mardis; Li Ding; Bob Fulton; Michael D McLellan; Ken Chen; David Dooling; Brian H Dunford-Shore; Sean McGrath; Matthew Hickenbotham; Lisa Cook; Rachel Abbott; David E Larson; Dan C Koboldt; Craig Pohl; Scott Smith; Amy Hawkins; Scott Abbott; Devin Locke; Ladeana W Hillier; Tracie Miner; Lucinda Fulton; Vincent Magrini; Todd Wylie; Jarret Glasscock; Joshua Conyers; Nathan Sander; Xiaoqi Shi; John R Osborne; Patrick Minx; David Gordon; Asif Chinwalla; Yu Zhao; Rhonda E Ries; Jacqueline E Payton; Peter Westervelt; Michael H Tomasson; Mark Watson; Jack Baty; Jennifer Ivanovich; Sharon Heath; William D Shannon; Rakesh Nagarajan; Matthew J Walter; Daniel C Link; Timothy A Graubert; John F DiPersio; Richard K Wilson Journal: Nature Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 49.962