P Cacheiro1,2, A Ordóñez-Ugalde1, B Quintáns1,2, S Piñeiro-Hermida1, J Amigo2,3, M García-Murias1,2, S I Pascual-Pascual4, F Grandas5, J Arpa6, A Carracedo2,3, M J Sobrido7,8. 1. Neurogenetics Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Hospital Clínico de Santiago, level-2, Travesía da Choupana s/n, 15706, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 2. Grupo de Medicina Xenómica, CIBERER-U711, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 3. Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 4. Servicio de Neuropediatría, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 5. Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 6. Servicio de Neurología, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 7. Neurogenetics Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Hospital Clínico de Santiago, level-2, Travesía da Choupana s/n, 15706, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. ssobrido@gmail.com. 8. Grupo de Medicina Xenómica, CIBERER-U711, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. ssobrido@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Variant detection protocols for clinical next-generation sequencing (NGS) need application-specific optimization. Our aim was to analyze the performance of single nucleotide variant (SNV) and copy number (CNV) detection programs on an NGS panel for a rare disease. METHODS: Thirty genes were sequenced in 83 patients with hereditary spastic paraplegia. The variant calls obtained with LifeScope, GATK UnifiedGenotyper and GATK HaplotypeCaller were compared with Sanger sequencing. The calling efficiency was evaluated for 187 (56 unique) SNVs and indels. Five multiexon deletions detected by multiple ligation probe assay were assessed from the NGS panel data with ExomeDepth, panelcn.MOPS and CNVPanelizer software. RESULTS: There were 48/51 (94%) SNVs and 1/5 (20%) indels consistently detected by all the calling algorithms. Two SNVs were not detected by any of the callers because of a rare reference allele, and one SNV in a low coverage region was only detected by two algorithms. Regarding CNVs, ExomeDepth detected 5/5 multi-exon deletions, panelcn.MOPs 4/5 and only 3/5 deletions were accurately detected by CNVPanelizer. CONCLUSIONS: The calling efficiency of NGS algorithms for SNVs is influenced by variant type and coverage. NGS protocols need to account for the presence of rare variants in the reference sequence as well as for ambiguities in indel calling. CNV detection algorithms can be used to identify large deletions from NGS panel data for diagnostic applications; however, sensitivity depends on coverage, selection of the reference set and deletion size. We recommend the incorporation of several variant callers in the NGS pipeline to maximize variant detection efficiency.
INTRODUCTION: Variant detection protocols for clinical next-generation sequencing (NGS) need application-specific optimization. Our aim was to analyze the performance of single nucleotide variant (SNV) and copy number (CNV) detection programs on an NGS panel for a rare disease. METHODS: Thirty genes were sequenced in 83 patients with hereditary spastic paraplegia. The variant calls obtained with LifeScope, GATK UnifiedGenotyper and GATK HaplotypeCaller were compared with Sanger sequencing. The calling efficiency was evaluated for 187 (56 unique) SNVs and indels. Five multiexon deletions detected by multiple ligation probe assay were assessed from the NGS panel data with ExomeDepth, panelcn.MOPS and CNVPanelizer software. RESULTS: There were 48/51 (94%) SNVs and 1/5 (20%) indels consistently detected by all the calling algorithms. Two SNVs were not detected by any of the callers because of a rare reference allele, and one SNV in a low coverage region was only detected by two algorithms. Regarding CNVs, ExomeDepth detected 5/5 multi-exon deletions, panelcn.MOPs 4/5 and only 3/5 deletions were accurately detected by CNVPanelizer. CONCLUSIONS: The calling efficiency of NGS algorithms for SNVs is influenced by variant type and coverage. NGS protocols need to account for the presence of rare variants in the reference sequence as well as for ambiguities in indel calling. CNV detection algorithms can be used to identify large deletions from NGS panel data for diagnostic applications; however, sensitivity depends on coverage, selection of the reference set and deletion size. We recommend the incorporation of several variant callers in the NGS pipeline to maximize variant detection efficiency.
Authors: Suganthi Balasubramanian; Lukas Habegger; Adam Frankish; Daniel G MacArthur; Rachel Harte; Chris Tyler-Smith; Jennifer Harrow; Mark Gerstein Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 11.361
Authors: Joep de Ligt; Philip M Boone; Rolph Pfundt; Lisenka E L M Vissers; Todd Richmond; Joel Geoghegan; Kathleen O'Moore; Nicole de Leeuw; Christine Shaw; Han G Brunner; James R Lupski; Joris A Veltman; Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Latha Kadalayil; Sajjad Rafiq; Matthew J J Rose-Zerilli; Reuben J Pengelly; Helen Parker; David Oscier; Jonathan C Strefford; William J Tapper; Jane Gibson; Sarah Ennis; Andrew Collins Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: Alexander Lex; Nils Gehlenborg; Hendrik Strobelt; Romain Vuillemot; Hanspeter Pfister Journal: IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.579
Authors: Han Fang; Yiyang Wu; Giuseppe Narzisi; Jason A O'Rawe; Laura T Jimenez Barrón; Julie Rosenbaum; Michael Ronemus; Ivan Iossifov; Michael C Schatz; Gholson J Lyon Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Erik P Garrison; Hyun Min Kang; Jan O Korbel; Jonathan L Marchini; Shane McCarthy; Gil A McVean; Gonçalo R Abecasis Journal: Nature Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Joakim Crona; Viktor Ljungström; Staffan Welin; Martin K Walz; Per Hellman; Peyman Björklund Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Louisa Lepkes; Mohamad Kayali; Britta Blümcke; Jonas Weber; Malwina Suszynska; Sandra Schmidt; Julika Borde; Katarzyna Klonowska; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Jan Hauke; Piotr Kozlowski; Rita K Schmutzler; Eric Hahnen; Corinna Ernst Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 6.639