Cargando…

Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control

Exome sequencing using next-generation sequencing technologies is a cost-efficient approach to selectively sequencing coding regions of the human genome for detection of disease variants. One of the lesser known yet important applications of exome sequencing data is to identify copy number variation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guo, Yan, Sheng, Quanghu, Samuels, David C., Lehmann, Brian, Bauer, Joshua A., Pietenpol, Jennifer, Shyr, Yu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3835197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24303503
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/915636
_version_ 1782292114026004480
author Guo, Yan
Sheng, Quanghu
Samuels, David C.
Lehmann, Brian
Bauer, Joshua A.
Pietenpol, Jennifer
Shyr, Yu
author_facet Guo, Yan
Sheng, Quanghu
Samuels, David C.
Lehmann, Brian
Bauer, Joshua A.
Pietenpol, Jennifer
Shyr, Yu
author_sort Guo, Yan
collection PubMed
description Exome sequencing using next-generation sequencing technologies is a cost-efficient approach to selectively sequencing coding regions of the human genome for detection of disease variants. One of the lesser known yet important applications of exome sequencing data is to identify copy number variation (CNV). There have been many exome CNV tools developed over the last few years, but the performance and accuracy of these programs have not been thoroughly evaluated. In this study, we systematically compared four popular exome CNV tools (CoNIFER, cn.MOPS, exomeCopy, and ExomeDepth) and evaluated their effectiveness against array comparative genome hybridization (array CGH) platforms. We found that exome CNV tools are capable of identifying CNVs, but they can have problems such as high false positives, low sensitivity, and duplication bias when compared to array CGH platforms. While exome CNV tools do serve their purpose for data mining, careful evaluation and additional validation is highly recommended. Based on all these results, we recommend CoNIFER and cn.MOPs for nonpaired exome CNV detection over the other two tools due to a low false-positive rate, although none of the four exome CNV tools performed at an outstanding level when compared to array CGH.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3835197
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38351972013-12-03 Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control Guo, Yan Sheng, Quanghu Samuels, David C. Lehmann, Brian Bauer, Joshua A. Pietenpol, Jennifer Shyr, Yu Biomed Res Int Research Article Exome sequencing using next-generation sequencing technologies is a cost-efficient approach to selectively sequencing coding regions of the human genome for detection of disease variants. One of the lesser known yet important applications of exome sequencing data is to identify copy number variation (CNV). There have been many exome CNV tools developed over the last few years, but the performance and accuracy of these programs have not been thoroughly evaluated. In this study, we systematically compared four popular exome CNV tools (CoNIFER, cn.MOPS, exomeCopy, and ExomeDepth) and evaluated their effectiveness against array comparative genome hybridization (array CGH) platforms. We found that exome CNV tools are capable of identifying CNVs, but they can have problems such as high false positives, low sensitivity, and duplication bias when compared to array CGH platforms. While exome CNV tools do serve their purpose for data mining, careful evaluation and additional validation is highly recommended. Based on all these results, we recommend CoNIFER and cn.MOPs for nonpaired exome CNV detection over the other two tools due to a low false-positive rate, although none of the four exome CNV tools performed at an outstanding level when compared to array CGH. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013 2013-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3835197/ /pubmed/24303503 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/915636 Text en Copyright © 2013 Yan Guo et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Guo, Yan
Sheng, Quanghu
Samuels, David C.
Lehmann, Brian
Bauer, Joshua A.
Pietenpol, Jennifer
Shyr, Yu
Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control
title Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control
title_full Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control
title_fullStr Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control
title_short Comparative Study of Exome Copy Number Variation Estimation Tools Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization as Control
title_sort comparative study of exome copy number variation estimation tools using array comparative genomic hybridization as control
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3835197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24303503
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/915636
work_keys_str_mv AT guoyan comparativestudyofexomecopynumbervariationestimationtoolsusingarraycomparativegenomichybridizationascontrol
AT shengquanghu comparativestudyofexomecopynumbervariationestimationtoolsusingarraycomparativegenomichybridizationascontrol
AT samuelsdavidc comparativestudyofexomecopynumbervariationestimationtoolsusingarraycomparativegenomichybridizationascontrol
AT lehmannbrian comparativestudyofexomecopynumbervariationestimationtoolsusingarraycomparativegenomichybridizationascontrol
AT bauerjoshuaa comparativestudyofexomecopynumbervariationestimationtoolsusingarraycomparativegenomichybridizationascontrol
AT pietenpoljennifer comparativestudyofexomecopynumbervariationestimationtoolsusingarraycomparativegenomichybridizationascontrol
AT shyryu comparativestudyofexomecopynumbervariationestimationtoolsusingarraycomparativegenomichybridizationascontrol