Cargando…

Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data

MOTIVATION: Whole exome and gene panel sequencing are increasingly used for oncological diagnostics. To investigate the accuracy of SCNA detection algorithms on simulated and clinical tumor samples, the precision and sensitivity of four SCNA callers were measured using 50 simulated whole exome and 5...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rieber, Nora, Bohnert, Regina, Ziehm, Ulrike, Jansen, Gunther
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5870863/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx284
_version_ 1783309559460265984
author Rieber, Nora
Bohnert, Regina
Ziehm, Ulrike
Jansen, Gunther
author_facet Rieber, Nora
Bohnert, Regina
Ziehm, Ulrike
Jansen, Gunther
author_sort Rieber, Nora
collection PubMed
description MOTIVATION: Whole exome and gene panel sequencing are increasingly used for oncological diagnostics. To investigate the accuracy of SCNA detection algorithms on simulated and clinical tumor samples, the precision and sensitivity of four SCNA callers were measured using 50 simulated whole exome and 50 simulated targeted gene panel datasets, and using 119 TCGA tumor samples for which SNP array data were available. RESULTS: On synthetic exome and panel data, VarScan2 mostly called false positives, whereas Control-FREEC was precise (>90% correct calls) at the cost of low sensitivity (<40% detected). ONCOCNV was slightly less precise on gene panel data, with similarly low sensitivity. This could be explained by low sensitivity for amplifications and high precision for deletions. Surprisingly, these results were not strongly affected by moderate tumor impurities; only contaminations with more than 60% non-cancerous cells resulted in strongly declining precision and sensitivity. On the 119 clinical samples, both Control-FREEC and CNVkit called 71.8% and 94%, respectively, of the SCNAs found by the SNP arrays, but with a considerable amount of false positives (precision 29% and 4.9%). DISCUSSION: Whole exome and targeted gene panel methods by design limit the precision of SCNA callers, making them prone to false positives. SCNA calls cannot easily be integrated in clinical pipelines that use data from targeted capture-based sequencing. If used at all, they need to be cross-validated using orthogonal methods. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Scripts are provided as supplementary information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5870863
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58708632018-03-29 Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data Rieber, Nora Bohnert, Regina Ziehm, Ulrike Jansen, Gunther Bioinformatics Original Papers MOTIVATION: Whole exome and gene panel sequencing are increasingly used for oncological diagnostics. To investigate the accuracy of SCNA detection algorithms on simulated and clinical tumor samples, the precision and sensitivity of four SCNA callers were measured using 50 simulated whole exome and 50 simulated targeted gene panel datasets, and using 119 TCGA tumor samples for which SNP array data were available. RESULTS: On synthetic exome and panel data, VarScan2 mostly called false positives, whereas Control-FREEC was precise (>90% correct calls) at the cost of low sensitivity (<40% detected). ONCOCNV was slightly less precise on gene panel data, with similarly low sensitivity. This could be explained by low sensitivity for amplifications and high precision for deletions. Surprisingly, these results were not strongly affected by moderate tumor impurities; only contaminations with more than 60% non-cancerous cells resulted in strongly declining precision and sensitivity. On the 119 clinical samples, both Control-FREEC and CNVkit called 71.8% and 94%, respectively, of the SCNAs found by the SNP arrays, but with a considerable amount of false positives (precision 29% and 4.9%). DISCUSSION: Whole exome and targeted gene panel methods by design limit the precision of SCNA callers, making them prone to false positives. SCNA calls cannot easily be integrated in clinical pipelines that use data from targeted capture-based sequencing. If used at all, they need to be cross-validated using orthogonal methods. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Scripts are provided as supplementary information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Oxford University Press 2017-09-15 2017-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5870863/ /pubmed/28472276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx284 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. 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 reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Papers
Rieber, Nora
Bohnert, Regina
Ziehm, Ulrike
Jansen, Gunther
Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data
title Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data
title_full Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data
title_fullStr Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data
title_short Reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data
title_sort reliability of algorithmic somatic copy number alteration detection from targeted capture data
topic Original Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5870863/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx284
work_keys_str_mv AT riebernora reliabilityofalgorithmicsomaticcopynumberalterationdetectionfromtargetedcapturedata
AT bohnertregina reliabilityofalgorithmicsomaticcopynumberalterationdetectionfromtargetedcapturedata
AT ziehmulrike reliabilityofalgorithmicsomaticcopynumberalterationdetectionfromtargetedcapturedata
AT jansengunther reliabilityofalgorithmicsomaticcopynumberalterationdetectionfromtargetedcapturedata