Literature DB >> 33910496

Performance evaluation of pipelines for mapping, variant calling and interval padding, for the analysis of NGS germline panels.

Maria Zanti1,2,3, Kyriaki Michailidou2,4, Maria A Loizidou1,2, Christina Machattou1, Panagiota Pirpa1, Kyproula Christodoulou2,5, George M Spyrou2,3, Kyriacos Kyriacou1,2, Andreas Hadjisavvas6,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) represents a significant advancement in clinical genetics. However, its use creates several technical, data interpretation and management challenges. It is essential to follow a consistent data analysis pipeline to achieve the highest possible accuracy and avoid false variant calls. Herein, we aimed to compare the performance of twenty-eight combinations of NGS data analysis pipeline compartments, including short-read mapping (BWA-MEM, Bowtie2, Stampy), variant calling (GATK-HaplotypeCaller, GATK-UnifiedGenotyper, SAMtools) and interval padding (null, 50 bp, 100 bp) methods, along with a commercially available pipeline (BWA Enrichment, Illumina®). Fourteen germline DNA samples from breast cancer patients were sequenced using a targeted NGS panel approach and subjected to data analysis.
RESULTS: We highlight that interval padding is required for the accurate detection of intronic variants including spliceogenic pathogenic variants (PVs). In addition, using nearly default parameters, the BWA Enrichment algorithm, failed to detect these spliceogenic PVs and a missense PV in the TP53 gene. We also recommend the BWA-MEM algorithm for sequence alignment, whereas variant calling should be performed using a combination of variant calling algorithms; GATK-HaplotypeCaller and SAMtools for the accurate detection of insertions/deletions and GATK-UnifiedGenotyper for the efficient detection of single nucleotide variant calls.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications towards the identification of clinically actionable variants through panel testing in a clinical laboratory setting, when dedicated bioinformatics personnel might not always be available. The results also reveal the necessity of improving the existing tools and/or at the same time developing new pipelines to generate more reliable and more consistent data.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alignment; Germline NGS data analysis; Interval padding; Next-generation sequencing (NGS); Pipeline comparison; Variant calling

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33910496     DOI: 10.1186/s12859-021-04144-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1471-2105            Impact factor:   3.169


  14 in total

1.  Analysis of insertion-deletion from deep-sequencing data: software evaluation for optimal detection.

Authors:  Joseph A Neuman; Ofer Isakov; Noam Shomron
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2012-03-24       Impact factor: 11.622

2.  Infertility treated with donor specific lymphocytes in recurrent idiopathic spontaneous abortion.

Authors:  I L Bernstein; D I Bernstein; K Balakrishnan; L Korbee
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 1.066

3.  Validation of a Next-Generation Sequencing Pipeline for the Molecular Diagnosis of Multiple Inherited Cancer Predisposing Syndromes.

Authors:  Paula Paulo; Pedro Pinto; Ana Peixoto; Catarina Santos; Carla Pinto; Patrícia Rocha; Isabel Veiga; Gabriela Soares; Catarina Machado; Fabiana Ramos; Manuel R Teixeira
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 5.568

4.  Comparison of insertion/deletion calling algorithms on human next-generation sequencing data.

Authors:  Dalia H Ghoneim; Jason R Myers; Emily Tuttle; Alex R Paciorkowski
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2014-12-01

5.  Comparison of Burrows-Wheeler Transform-Based Mapping Algorithms Used in High-Throughput Whole-Genome Sequencing: Application to Illumina Data for Livestock Genomes.

Authors:  Brittney N Keel; Warren M Snelling
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 6.  Influence of the Tumor Microenvironment on NK Cell Function in Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Ombretta Melaiu; Valeria Lucarini; Loredana Cifaldi; Doriana Fruci
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 7.561

7.  Low concordance of multiple variant-calling pipelines: practical implications for exome and genome sequencing.

Authors:  Jason O'Rawe; Tao Jiang; Guangqing Sun; Yiyang Wu; Wei Wang; Jingchu Hu; Paul Bodily; Lifeng Tian; Hakon Hakonarson; W Evan Johnson; Zhi Wei; Kai Wang; Gholson J Lyon
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 11.117

8.  Variant callers for next-generation sequencing data: a comparison study.

Authors:  Xiangtao Liu; Shizhong Han; Zuoheng Wang; Joel Gelernter; Bao-Zhu Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A Comparison of Variant Calling Pipelines Using Genome in a Bottle as a Reference.

Authors:  Adam Cornish; Chittibabu Guda
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-10-11       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  A survey of tools for variant analysis of next-generation genome sequencing data.

Authors:  Stephan Pabinger; Andreas Dander; Maria Fischer; Rene Snajder; Michael Sperk; Mirjana Efremova; Birgit Krabichler; Michael R Speicher; Johannes Zschocke; Zlatko Trajanoski
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 11.622

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.