Cargando…
Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data
Valid variant calling results are crucial for the use of next-generation sequencing in clinical routine. However, there are numerous variant calling tools that usually differ in algorithms, filtering strategies, recommendations and thus, also in the output. We evaluated eight open-source tools regar...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28233799 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43169 |
_version_ | 1782510156386402304 |
---|---|
author | Sandmann, Sarah de Graaf, Aniek O. Karimi, Mohsen van der Reijden, Bert A. Hellström-Lindberg, Eva Jansen, Joop H. Dugas, Martin |
author_facet | Sandmann, Sarah de Graaf, Aniek O. Karimi, Mohsen van der Reijden, Bert A. Hellström-Lindberg, Eva Jansen, Joop H. Dugas, Martin |
author_sort | Sandmann, Sarah |
collection | PubMed |
description | Valid variant calling results are crucial for the use of next-generation sequencing in clinical routine. However, there are numerous variant calling tools that usually differ in algorithms, filtering strategies, recommendations and thus, also in the output. We evaluated eight open-source tools regarding their ability to call single nucleotide variants and short indels with allelic frequencies as low as 1% in non-matched next-generation sequencing data: GATK HaplotypeCaller, Platypus, VarScan, LoFreq, FreeBayes, SNVer, SAMtools and VarDict. We analysed two real datasets from patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, covering 54 Illumina HiSeq samples and 111 Illumina NextSeq samples. Mutations were validated by re-sequencing on the same platform, on a different platform and expert based review. In addition we considered two simulated datasets with varying coverage and error profiles, covering 50 samples each. In all cases an identical target region consisting of 19 genes (42,322 bp) was analysed. Altogether, no tool succeeded in calling all mutations. High sensitivity was always accompanied by low precision. Influence of varying coverages- and background noise on variant calling was generally low. Taking everything into account, VarDict performed best. However, our results indicate that there is a need to improve reproducibility of the results in the context of multithreading. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5324109 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53241092017-03-01 Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data Sandmann, Sarah de Graaf, Aniek O. Karimi, Mohsen van der Reijden, Bert A. Hellström-Lindberg, Eva Jansen, Joop H. Dugas, Martin Sci Rep Article Valid variant calling results are crucial for the use of next-generation sequencing in clinical routine. However, there are numerous variant calling tools that usually differ in algorithms, filtering strategies, recommendations and thus, also in the output. We evaluated eight open-source tools regarding their ability to call single nucleotide variants and short indels with allelic frequencies as low as 1% in non-matched next-generation sequencing data: GATK HaplotypeCaller, Platypus, VarScan, LoFreq, FreeBayes, SNVer, SAMtools and VarDict. We analysed two real datasets from patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, covering 54 Illumina HiSeq samples and 111 Illumina NextSeq samples. Mutations were validated by re-sequencing on the same platform, on a different platform and expert based review. In addition we considered two simulated datasets with varying coverage and error profiles, covering 50 samples each. In all cases an identical target region consisting of 19 genes (42,322 bp) was analysed. Altogether, no tool succeeded in calling all mutations. High sensitivity was always accompanied by low precision. Influence of varying coverages- and background noise on variant calling was generally low. Taking everything into account, VarDict performed best. However, our results indicate that there is a need to improve reproducibility of the results in the context of multithreading. Nature Publishing Group 2017-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5324109/ /pubmed/28233799 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43169 Text en Copyright © 2017, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article Sandmann, Sarah de Graaf, Aniek O. Karimi, Mohsen van der Reijden, Bert A. Hellström-Lindberg, Eva Jansen, Joop H. Dugas, Martin Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data |
title | Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data |
title_full | Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data |
title_fullStr | Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data |
title_short | Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data |
title_sort | evaluating variant calling tools for non-matched next-generation sequencing data |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28233799 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43169 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sandmannsarah evaluatingvariantcallingtoolsfornonmatchednextgenerationsequencingdata AT degraafanieko evaluatingvariantcallingtoolsfornonmatchednextgenerationsequencingdata AT karimimohsen evaluatingvariantcallingtoolsfornonmatchednextgenerationsequencingdata AT vanderreijdenberta evaluatingvariantcallingtoolsfornonmatchednextgenerationsequencingdata AT hellstromlindbergeva evaluatingvariantcallingtoolsfornonmatchednextgenerationsequencingdata AT jansenjooph evaluatingvariantcallingtoolsfornonmatchednextgenerationsequencingdata AT dugasmartin evaluatingvariantcallingtoolsfornonmatchednextgenerationsequencingdata |