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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moreno-Cabrera, José Marcos, del Valle, Jesús, Castellanos, Elisabeth, Feliubadaló, Lidia, Pineda, Marta, Brunet, Joan, Serra, Eduard, Capellà, Gabriel, Lázaro, Conxi, Gel, Bernat
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