Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Palliative Treatment of Esophageal Cancer Using Calcium Electroporation

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. cyCombine allows for robust integration of single-cell cytometry datasets within and across technologies

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Analysis of Compositional Bias in a Commercial Phage Display Peptide Library by Next-Generation Sequencing

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Copy number variants as modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Copy-number variations (CNVs) have important clinical implications for several diseases and cancers. Relevant CNVs are hard to detect because common structural variations define large parts of the human genome. CNV calling from short-read sequencing would allow single protocol full genomic profiling. We reviewed 50 popular CNV calling tools and included 11 tools for benchmarking in a reference cohort encompassing 39 whole genome sequencing (WGS) samples paired current clinical standard-SNP-array based CNV calling. Additionally, for nine samples we also performed whole exome sequencing (WES), to address the effect of sequencing protocol on CNV calling. Furthermore, we included Gold Standard reference sample NA12878, and tested 12 samples with CNVs confirmed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Tool performance varied greatly in the number of called CNVs and bias for CNV lengths. Some tools had near-perfect recall of CNVs from arrays for some samples, but poor precision. Several tools had better performance for NA12878, which could be a result of overfitting. We suggest combining the best tools also based on different methodologies: GATK gCNV, Lumpy, DELLY, and cn.MOPS. Reducing the total number of called variants could potentially be assisted by the use of background panels for filtering of frequently called variants.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer 6283
TidsskriftCancers
Vol/bind13
Udgave nummer24
Antal sider21
ISSN2072-6694
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1 dec. 2021

ID: 74852795