Cargando…
Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data
Insertion and deletion (INDEL) mutations, the most common type of structural variance, are associated with several human diseases. The detection of INDELs through next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming more common due to the decrease in costs, the increase in efficiency, and sensitivity improv...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549930/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28792971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182272 |
_version_ | 1783256048592748544 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Bo-Young Park, Jung Hoon Jo, Hye-Yeong Koo, Soo Kyung Park, Mi-Hyun |
author_facet | Kim, Bo-Young Park, Jung Hoon Jo, Hye-Yeong Koo, Soo Kyung Park, Mi-Hyun |
author_sort | Kim, Bo-Young |
collection | PubMed |
description | Insertion and deletion (INDEL) mutations, the most common type of structural variance, are associated with several human diseases. The detection of INDELs through next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming more common due to the decrease in costs, the increase in efficiency, and sensitivity improvements demonstrated by the various sequencing platforms and analytical tools. However, there are still many errors associated with INDEL variant calling, and distinguishing INDELs from errors in NGS remains challenging. To evaluate INDEL calling from whole-exome sequencing (WES) data, we performed Sanger sequencing for all INDELs called from the several calling algorithm. We compared the performance of the four algorithms (i.e. GATK, SAMtools, Dindel, and Freebayes) for INDEL detection from the same sample. We examined the sensitivity and PPV of GATK (90.2 and 89.5%, respectively), SAMtools (75.3 and 94.4%, respectively), Dindel (90.1 and 88.6%, respectively), and Freebayes (80.1 and 94.4%, respectively). GATK had the highest sensitivity. Furthermore, we identified INDELs with high PPV (4 algorithms intersection: 98.7%, 3 algorithms intersection: 97.6%, and GATK and SAMtools intersection INDELs: 97.6%). We presented two key sources of difficulties in accurate INDEL detection: 1) the presence of repeat, and 2) heterozygous INDELs. Herein we could suggest the accessible algorithms that selectively reduce error rates and thereby facilitate INDEL detection. Our study may also serve as a basis for understanding the accuracy and completeness of INDEL detection. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5549930 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55499302017-08-15 Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data Kim, Bo-Young Park, Jung Hoon Jo, Hye-Yeong Koo, Soo Kyung Park, Mi-Hyun PLoS One Research Article Insertion and deletion (INDEL) mutations, the most common type of structural variance, are associated with several human diseases. The detection of INDELs through next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming more common due to the decrease in costs, the increase in efficiency, and sensitivity improvements demonstrated by the various sequencing platforms and analytical tools. However, there are still many errors associated with INDEL variant calling, and distinguishing INDELs from errors in NGS remains challenging. To evaluate INDEL calling from whole-exome sequencing (WES) data, we performed Sanger sequencing for all INDELs called from the several calling algorithm. We compared the performance of the four algorithms (i.e. GATK, SAMtools, Dindel, and Freebayes) for INDEL detection from the same sample. We examined the sensitivity and PPV of GATK (90.2 and 89.5%, respectively), SAMtools (75.3 and 94.4%, respectively), Dindel (90.1 and 88.6%, respectively), and Freebayes (80.1 and 94.4%, respectively). GATK had the highest sensitivity. Furthermore, we identified INDELs with high PPV (4 algorithms intersection: 98.7%, 3 algorithms intersection: 97.6%, and GATK and SAMtools intersection INDELs: 97.6%). We presented two key sources of difficulties in accurate INDEL detection: 1) the presence of repeat, and 2) heterozygous INDELs. Herein we could suggest the accessible algorithms that selectively reduce error rates and thereby facilitate INDEL detection. Our study may also serve as a basis for understanding the accuracy and completeness of INDEL detection. Public Library of Science 2017-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5549930/ /pubmed/28792971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182272 Text en © 2017 Kim et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kim, Bo-Young Park, Jung Hoon Jo, Hye-Yeong Koo, Soo Kyung Park, Mi-Hyun Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data |
title | Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data |
title_full | Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data |
title_fullStr | Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data |
title_full_unstemmed | Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data |
title_short | Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data |
title_sort | optimized detection of insertions/deletions (indels) in whole-exome sequencing data |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549930/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28792971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182272 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimboyoung optimizeddetectionofinsertionsdeletionsindelsinwholeexomesequencingdata AT parkjunghoon optimizeddetectionofinsertionsdeletionsindelsinwholeexomesequencingdata AT johyeyeong optimizeddetectionofinsertionsdeletionsindelsinwholeexomesequencingdata AT koosookyung optimizeddetectionofinsertionsdeletionsindelsinwholeexomesequencingdata AT parkmihyun optimizeddetectionofinsertionsdeletionsindelsinwholeexomesequencingdata |