Cargando…

A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparison of BeadChip and WGS/WES genotyping techniques for their precision is far from straightforward. A tool for validation of high-throughput genotyping calls such as Sanger sequencing is neither scalable nor practical for large-scale DNA processing. Here we report a cr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Danilov, Kirill A., Nikogosov, Dimitri A., Musienko, Sergey V., Baranova, Ancha V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32912136
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06919-x
_version_ 1783581629325770752
author Danilov, Kirill A.
Nikogosov, Dimitri A.
Musienko, Sergey V.
Baranova, Ancha V.
author_facet Danilov, Kirill A.
Nikogosov, Dimitri A.
Musienko, Sergey V.
Baranova, Ancha V.
author_sort Danilov, Kirill A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparison of BeadChip and WGS/WES genotyping techniques for their precision is far from straightforward. A tool for validation of high-throughput genotyping calls such as Sanger sequencing is neither scalable nor practical for large-scale DNA processing. Here we report a cross-validation analysis of genotyping calls obtained via Illumina GSA BeadChip and WGS (Illumina HiSeq X Ten) techniques. RESULTS: When compared to each other, the average precision and accuracy of BeadChip and WGS genotyping techniques exceeded 0.991 and 0.997, respectively. The average fraction of discordant variants for both platforms was found to be 0.639%. A sliding window approach was utilized to explore genomic regions not exceeding 500 bp encompassing a maximal amount of discordant variants for further validation by Sanger sequencing. Notably, 12 variants out of 26 located within eight identified regions were consistently discordant in related calls made by WGS and BeadChip. When Sanger sequenced, a total of 16 of these genotypes were successfully resolved, indicating that a precision of WGS and BeadChip genotyping for this genotype subset was at 0.81 and 0.5, respectively, with accuracy values of 0.87 and 0.61. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that WGS genotype calling exhibits higher overall precision within the selected variety of discordantly genotyped variants, though the amount of validated variants remained insufficient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7488117
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74881172020-09-16 A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing Danilov, Kirill A. Nikogosov, Dimitri A. Musienko, Sergey V. Baranova, Ancha V. BMC Genomics Research BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparison of BeadChip and WGS/WES genotyping techniques for their precision is far from straightforward. A tool for validation of high-throughput genotyping calls such as Sanger sequencing is neither scalable nor practical for large-scale DNA processing. Here we report a cross-validation analysis of genotyping calls obtained via Illumina GSA BeadChip and WGS (Illumina HiSeq X Ten) techniques. RESULTS: When compared to each other, the average precision and accuracy of BeadChip and WGS genotyping techniques exceeded 0.991 and 0.997, respectively. The average fraction of discordant variants for both platforms was found to be 0.639%. A sliding window approach was utilized to explore genomic regions not exceeding 500 bp encompassing a maximal amount of discordant variants for further validation by Sanger sequencing. Notably, 12 variants out of 26 located within eight identified regions were consistently discordant in related calls made by WGS and BeadChip. When Sanger sequenced, a total of 16 of these genotypes were successfully resolved, indicating that a precision of WGS and BeadChip genotyping for this genotype subset was at 0.81 and 0.5, respectively, with accuracy values of 0.87 and 0.61. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that WGS genotype calling exhibits higher overall precision within the selected variety of discordantly genotyped variants, though the amount of validated variants remained insufficient. BioMed Central 2020-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7488117/ /pubmed/32912136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06919-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Danilov, Kirill A.
Nikogosov, Dimitri A.
Musienko, Sergey V.
Baranova, Ancha V.
A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing
title A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing
title_full A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing
title_fullStr A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing
title_short A comparison of BeadChip and WGS genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing
title_sort comparison of beadchip and wgs genotyping outputs using partial validation by sanger sequencing
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32912136
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06919-x
work_keys_str_mv AT danilovkirilla acomparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing
AT nikogosovdimitria acomparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing
AT musienkosergeyv acomparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing
AT baranovaanchav acomparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing
AT danilovkirilla comparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing
AT nikogosovdimitria comparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing
AT musienkosergeyv comparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing
AT baranovaanchav comparisonofbeadchipandwgsgenotypingoutputsusingpartialvalidationbysangersequencing