Vassily Trubetskoy1, Alex Rodriguez1, Uptal Dave1, Nicholas Campbell2, Emily L Crawford2, Edwin H Cook1, James S Sutcliffe2, Ian Foster1, Ravi Madduri1, Nancy J Cox1, Lea K Davis1. 1. Department of Medicine, Section of Genetic Medicine, Computation Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232, USA, Vanderbilt Brain Institute, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232 and Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Section of Genetic Medicine, Computation Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232, USA, Vanderbilt Brain Institute, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232 and Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA Department of Medicine, Section of Genetic Medicine, Computation Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232, USA, Vanderbilt Brain Institute, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232 and Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The development of cost-effective next-generation sequencing methods has spurred the development of high-throughput bioinformatics tools for detection of sequence variation. With many disparate variant-calling algorithms available, investigators must ask, 'Which method is best for my data?' Machine learning research has shown that so-called ensemble methods that combine the output of multiple models can dramatically improve classifier performance. Here we describe a novel variant-calling approach based on an ensemble of variant-calling algorithms, which we term the Consensus Genotyper for Exome Sequencing (CGES). CGES uses a two-stage voting scheme among four algorithm implementations. While our ensemble method can accept variants generated by any variant-calling algorithm, we used GATK2.8, SAMtools, FreeBayes and Atlas-SNP2 in building CGES because of their performance, widespread adoption and diverse but complementary algorithms. RESULTS: We apply CGES to 132 samples sequenced at the Hudson Alpha Institute for Biotechnology (HAIB, Huntsville, AL) using the Nimblegen Exome Capture and Illumina sequencing technology. Our sample set consisted of 40 complete trios, two families of four, one parent-child duo and two unrelated individuals. CGES yielded the fewest total variant calls (N(CGES) = 139° 897), the highest Ts/Tv ratio (3.02), the lowest Mendelian error rate across all genotypes (0.028%), the highest rediscovery rate from the Exome Variant Server (EVS; 89.3%) and 1000 Genomes (1KG; 84.1%) and the highest positive predictive value (PPV; 96.1%) for a random sample of previously validated de novo variants. We describe these and other quality control (QC) metrics from consensus data and explain how the CGES pipeline can be used to generate call sets of varying quality stringency, including consensus calls present across all four algorithms, calls that are consistent across any three out of four algorithms, calls that are consistent across any two out of four algorithms or a more liberal set of all calls made by any algorithm. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: To enable accessible, efficient and reproducible analysis, we implement CGES both as a stand-alone command line tool available for download in GitHub and as a set of Galaxy tools and workflows configured to execute on parallel computers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
MOTIVATION: The development of cost-effective next-generation sequencing methods has spurred the development of high-throughput bioinformatics tools for detection of sequence variation. With many disparate variant-calling algorithms available, investigators must ask, 'Which method is best for my data?' Machine learning research has shown that so-called ensemble methods that combine the output of multiple models can dramatically improve classifier performance. Here we describe a novel variant-calling approach based on an ensemble of variant-calling algorithms, which we term the Consensus Genotyper for Exome Sequencing (CGES). CGES uses a two-stage voting scheme among four algorithm implementations. While our ensemble method can accept variants generated by any variant-calling algorithm, we used GATK2.8, SAMtools, FreeBayes and Atlas-SNP2 in building CGES because of their performance, widespread adoption and diverse but complementary algorithms. RESULTS: We apply CGES to 132 samples sequenced at the Hudson Alpha Institute for Biotechnology (HAIB, Huntsville, AL) using the Nimblegen Exome Capture and Illumina sequencing technology. Our sample set consisted of 40 complete trios, two families of four, one parent-child duo and two unrelated individuals. CGES yielded the fewest total variant calls (N(CGES) = 139° 897), the highest Ts/Tv ratio (3.02), the lowest Mendelian error rate across all genotypes (0.028%), the highest rediscovery rate from the Exome Variant Server (EVS; 89.3%) and 1000 Genomes (1KG; 84.1%) and the highest positive predictive value (PPV; 96.1%) for a random sample of previously validated de novo variants. We describe these and other quality control (QC) metrics from consensus data and explain how the CGES pipeline can be used to generate call sets of varying quality stringency, including consensus calls present across all four algorithms, calls that are consistent across any three out of four algorithms, calls that are consistent across any two out of four algorithms or a more liberal set of all calls made by any algorithm. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: To enable accessible, efficient and reproducible analysis, we implement CGES both as a stand-alone command line tool available for download in GitHub and as a set of Galaxy tools and workflows configured to execute on parallel computers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Authors: Aaron McKenna; Matthew Hanna; Eric Banks; Andrey Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrew Kernytsky; Kiran Garimella; David Altshuler; Stacey Gabriel; Mark Daly; Mark A DePristo Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Daniel C Koboldt; Qunyuan Zhang; David E Larson; Dong Shen; Michael D McLellan; Ling Lin; Christopher A Miller; Elaine R Mardis; Li Ding; Richard K Wilson Journal: Genome Res Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Benjamin M Neale; Yan Kou; Li Liu; Avi Ma'ayan; Kaitlin E Samocha; Aniko Sabo; Chiao-Feng Lin; Christine Stevens; Li-San Wang; Vladimir Makarov; Paz Polak; Seungtai Yoon; Jared Maguire; Emily L Crawford; Nicholas G Campbell; Evan T Geller; Otto Valladares; Chad Schafer; Han Liu; Tuo Zhao; Guiqing Cai; Jayon Lihm; Ruth Dannenfelser; Omar Jabado; Zuleyma Peralta; Uma Nagaswamy; Donna Muzny; Jeffrey G Reid; Irene Newsham; Yuanqing Wu; Lora Lewis; Yi Han; Benjamin F Voight; Elaine Lim; Elizabeth Rossin; Andrew Kirby; Jason Flannick; Menachem Fromer; Khalid Shakir; Tim Fennell; Kiran Garimella; Eric Banks; Ryan Poplin; Stacey Gabriel; Mark DePristo; Jack R Wimbish; Braden E Boone; Shawn E Levy; Catalina Betancur; Shamil Sunyaev; Eric Boerwinkle; Joseph D Buxbaum; Edwin H Cook; Bernie Devlin; Richard A Gibbs; Kathryn Roeder; Gerard D Schellenberg; James S Sutcliffe; Mark J Daly Journal: Nature Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Mark A DePristo; Eric Banks; Ryan Poplin; Kiran V Garimella; Jared R Maguire; Christopher Hartl; Anthony A Philippakis; Guillermo del Angel; Manuel A Rivas; Matt Hanna; Aaron McKenna; Tim J Fennell; Andrew M Kernytsky; Andrey Y Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Stacey B Gabriel; David Altshuler; Mark J Daly Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Petr Danecek; Adam Auton; Goncalo Abecasis; Cornelis A Albers; Eric Banks; Mark A DePristo; Robert E Handsaker; Gerton Lunter; Gabor T Marth; Stephen T Sherry; Gilean McVean; Richard Durbin Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Li Liu; Aniko Sabo; Benjamin M Neale; Uma Nagaswamy; Christine Stevens; Elaine Lim; Corneliu A Bodea; Donna Muzny; Jeffrey G Reid; Eric Banks; Hillary Coon; Mark Depristo; Huyen Dinh; Tim Fennel; Jason Flannick; Stacey Gabriel; Kiran Garimella; Shannon Gross; Alicia Hawes; Lora Lewis; Vladimir Makarov; Jared Maguire; Irene Newsham; Ryan Poplin; Stephan Ripke; Khalid Shakir; Kaitlin E Samocha; Yuanqing Wu; Eric Boerwinkle; Joseph D Buxbaum; Edwin H Cook; Bernie Devlin; Gerard D Schellenberg; James S Sutcliffe; Mark J Daly; Richard A Gibbs; Kathryn Roeder Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Adam C Naj; Honghuang Lin; Badri N Vardarajan; Simon White; Daniel Lancour; Yiyi Ma; Michael Schmidt; Fangui Sun; Mariusz Butkiewicz; William S Bush; Brian W Kunkle; John Malamon; Najaf Amin; Seung Hoan Choi; Kara L Hamilton-Nelson; Sven J van der Lee; Namrata Gupta; Daniel C Koboldt; Mohamad Saad; Bowen Wang; Alejandro Q Nato; Harkirat K Sohi; Amanda Kuzma; Li-San Wang; L Adrienne Cupples; Cornelia van Duijn; Sudha Seshadri; Gerard D Schellenberg; Eric Boerwinkle; Joshua C Bis; Josée Dupuis; William J Salerno; Ellen M Wijsman; Eden R Martin; Anita L DeStefano Journal: Genomics Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 5.736