Cargando…
Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data
BACKGROUND: Insertion and deletion (indel) is one of the major variation types in human genomes. Accurate annotation of indels is of paramount importance in genetic variation analysis and investigation of their roles in human diseases. Previous studies revealed a high number of false positives from...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33167946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12920-020-00818-6 |
_version_ | 1783607930264748032 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Jing Guo, Jun-tao |
author_facet | Chen, Jing Guo, Jun-tao |
author_sort | Chen, Jing |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Insertion and deletion (indel) is one of the major variation types in human genomes. Accurate annotation of indels is of paramount importance in genetic variation analysis and investigation of their roles in human diseases. Previous studies revealed a high number of false positives from existing indel calling methods, which limits downstream analyses of the effects of indels on both healthy and disease genomes. In this study, we evaluated seven commonly used general indel calling programs for germline indels and four somatic indel calling programs through comparative analysis to investigate their common features and differences and to explore ways to improve indel annotation accuracy. METHODS: In our comparative analysis, we adopted a more stringent evaluation approach by considering both the indel positions and the indel types (insertion or deletion sequences) between the samples and the reference set. In addition, we applied an efficient way to use a benchmark for improved performance comparisons for the general indel calling programs RESULTS: We found that germline indels in healthy genomes derived by combining several indel calling tools could help remove a large number of false positive indels from individual programs without compromising the number of true positives. The performance comparisons of somatic indel calling programs are more complicated due to the lack of a reliable and comprehensive benchmark. Nevertheless our results revealed large variations among the programs and among cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: While more accurate indel calling programs are needed, we found that the performance for germline indel annotations can be improved by combining the results from several programs. In addition, well-designed benchmarks for both germline and somatic indels are key in program development and evaluations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7653722 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76537222020-11-16 Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data Chen, Jing Guo, Jun-tao BMC Med Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Insertion and deletion (indel) is one of the major variation types in human genomes. Accurate annotation of indels is of paramount importance in genetic variation analysis and investigation of their roles in human diseases. Previous studies revealed a high number of false positives from existing indel calling methods, which limits downstream analyses of the effects of indels on both healthy and disease genomes. In this study, we evaluated seven commonly used general indel calling programs for germline indels and four somatic indel calling programs through comparative analysis to investigate their common features and differences and to explore ways to improve indel annotation accuracy. METHODS: In our comparative analysis, we adopted a more stringent evaluation approach by considering both the indel positions and the indel types (insertion or deletion sequences) between the samples and the reference set. In addition, we applied an efficient way to use a benchmark for improved performance comparisons for the general indel calling programs RESULTS: We found that germline indels in healthy genomes derived by combining several indel calling tools could help remove a large number of false positive indels from individual programs without compromising the number of true positives. The performance comparisons of somatic indel calling programs are more complicated due to the lack of a reliable and comprehensive benchmark. Nevertheless our results revealed large variations among the programs and among cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: While more accurate indel calling programs are needed, we found that the performance for germline indel annotations can be improved by combining the results from several programs. In addition, well-designed benchmarks for both germline and somatic indels are key in program development and evaluations. BioMed Central 2020-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7653722/ /pubmed/33167946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12920-020-00818-6 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 Article Chen, Jing Guo, Jun-tao Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data |
title | Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data |
title_full | Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data |
title_fullStr | Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data |
title_short | Comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data |
title_sort | comparative assessments of indel annotations in healthy and cancer genomes with next-generation sequencing data |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33167946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12920-020-00818-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenjing comparativeassessmentsofindelannotationsinhealthyandcancergenomeswithnextgenerationsequencingdata AT guojuntao comparativeassessmentsofindelannotationsinhealthyandcancergenomeswithnextgenerationsequencingdata |