Cargando…
Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics
Although germline copy-number variants (CNVs) are the genetic cause of multiple hereditary diseases, detecting them from targeted next-generation sequencing data (NGS) remains a challenge. Existing tools perform well for large CNVs but struggle with single and multi-exon alterations. The aim of this...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7784926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32561899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0675-z |
_version_ | 1783632368886611968 |
---|---|
author | Moreno-Cabrera, José Marcos del Valle, Jesús Castellanos, Elisabeth Feliubadaló, Lidia Pineda, Marta Brunet, Joan Serra, Eduard Capellà, Gabriel Lázaro, Conxi Gel, Bernat |
author_facet | Moreno-Cabrera, José Marcos del Valle, Jesús Castellanos, Elisabeth Feliubadaló, Lidia Pineda, Marta Brunet, Joan Serra, Eduard Capellà, Gabriel Lázaro, Conxi Gel, Bernat |
author_sort | Moreno-Cabrera, José Marcos |
collection | PubMed |
description | Although germline copy-number variants (CNVs) are the genetic cause of multiple hereditary diseases, detecting them from targeted next-generation sequencing data (NGS) remains a challenge. Existing tools perform well for large CNVs but struggle with single and multi-exon alterations. The aim of this work is to evaluate CNV calling tools working on gene panel NGS data and their suitability as a screening step before orthogonal confirmation in genetic diagnostics strategies. Five tools (DECoN, CoNVaDING, panelcn.MOPS, ExomeDepth, and CODEX2) were tested against four genetic diagnostics datasets (two in-house and two external) for a total of 495 samples with 231 single and multi-exon validated CNVs. The evaluation was performed using the default and sensitivity-optimized parameters. Results showed that most tools were highly sensitive and specific, but the performance was dataset dependant. When evaluating them in our diagnostics scenario, DECoN and panelcn.MOPS detected all CNVs with the exception of one mosaic CNV missed by DECoN. However, DECoN outperformed panelcn.MOPS specificity achieving values greater than 0.90 when using the optimized parameters. In our in-house datasets, DECoN and panelcn.MOPS showed the highest performance for CNV screening before orthogonal confirmation. Benchmarking and optimization code is freely available at https://github.com/TranslationalBioinformaticsIGTP/CNVbenchmarkeR. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7784926 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77849262021-01-14 Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics Moreno-Cabrera, José Marcos del Valle, Jesús Castellanos, Elisabeth Feliubadaló, Lidia Pineda, Marta Brunet, Joan Serra, Eduard Capellà, Gabriel Lázaro, Conxi Gel, Bernat Eur J Hum Genet Article Although germline copy-number variants (CNVs) are the genetic cause of multiple hereditary diseases, detecting them from targeted next-generation sequencing data (NGS) remains a challenge. Existing tools perform well for large CNVs but struggle with single and multi-exon alterations. The aim of this work is to evaluate CNV calling tools working on gene panel NGS data and their suitability as a screening step before orthogonal confirmation in genetic diagnostics strategies. Five tools (DECoN, CoNVaDING, panelcn.MOPS, ExomeDepth, and CODEX2) were tested against four genetic diagnostics datasets (two in-house and two external) for a total of 495 samples with 231 single and multi-exon validated CNVs. The evaluation was performed using the default and sensitivity-optimized parameters. Results showed that most tools were highly sensitive and specific, but the performance was dataset dependant. When evaluating them in our diagnostics scenario, DECoN and panelcn.MOPS detected all CNVs with the exception of one mosaic CNV missed by DECoN. However, DECoN outperformed panelcn.MOPS specificity achieving values greater than 0.90 when using the optimized parameters. In our in-house datasets, DECoN and panelcn.MOPS showed the highest performance for CNV screening before orthogonal confirmation. Benchmarking and optimization code is freely available at https://github.com/TranslationalBioinformaticsIGTP/CNVbenchmarkeR. Springer International Publishing 2020-06-19 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7784926/ /pubmed/32561899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0675-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This 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 license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Moreno-Cabrera, José Marcos del Valle, Jesús Castellanos, Elisabeth Feliubadaló, Lidia Pineda, Marta Brunet, Joan Serra, Eduard Capellà, Gabriel Lázaro, Conxi Gel, Bernat Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics |
title | Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics |
title_full | Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics |
title_short | Evaluation of CNV detection tools for NGS panel data in genetic diagnostics |
title_sort | evaluation of cnv detection tools for ngs panel data in genetic diagnostics |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7784926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32561899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0675-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morenocabrerajosemarcos evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT delvallejesus evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT castellanoselisabeth evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT feliubadalolidia evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT pinedamarta evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT brunetjoan evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT serraeduard evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT capellagabriel evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT lazaroconxi evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics AT gelbernat evaluationofcnvdetectiontoolsforngspaneldataingeneticdiagnostics |