Cargando…
Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data
BACKGROUND: Detection of copy number variations (CNVs) from high-throughput next-generation whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data has become a widely used research method during the recent years. However, only a little is known about the applicability of the developed algorithms to ultra-low-coverage (...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34000988 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07686-z |
_version_ | 1783694529204846592 |
---|---|
author | Smolander, Johannes Khan, Sofia Singaravelu, Kalaimathy Kauko, Leni Lund, Riikka J. Laiho, Asta Elo, Laura L. |
author_facet | Smolander, Johannes Khan, Sofia Singaravelu, Kalaimathy Kauko, Leni Lund, Riikka J. Laiho, Asta Elo, Laura L. |
author_sort | Smolander, Johannes |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Detection of copy number variations (CNVs) from high-throughput next-generation whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data has become a widely used research method during the recent years. However, only a little is known about the applicability of the developed algorithms to ultra-low-coverage (0.0005–0.8×) data that is used in various research and clinical applications, such as digital karyotyping and single-cell CNV detection. RESULT: Here, the performance of six popular read-depth based CNV detection algorithms (BIC-seq2, Canvas, CNVnator, FREEC, HMMcopy, and QDNAseq) was studied using ultra-low-coverage WGS data. Real-world array- and karyotyping kit-based validation were used as a benchmark in the evaluation. Additionally, ultra-low-coverage WGS data was simulated to investigate the ability of the algorithms to identify CNVs in the sex chromosomes and the theoretical minimum coverage at which these tools can accurately function. Our results suggest that while all the methods were able to detect large CNVs, many methods were susceptible to producing false positives when smaller CNVs (< 2 Mbp) were detected. There was also significant variability in their ability to identify CNVs in the sex chromosomes. Overall, BIC-seq2 was found to be the best method in terms of statistical performance. However, its significant drawback was by far the slowest runtime among the methods (> 3 h) compared with FREEC (~ 3 min), which we considered the second-best method. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis demonstrates that CNV detection from ultra-low-coverage WGS data can be a highly accurate method for the detection of large copy number variations when their length is in millions of base pairs. These findings facilitate applications that utilize ultra-low-coverage CNV detection. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-021-07686-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8130438 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81304382021-05-19 Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data Smolander, Johannes Khan, Sofia Singaravelu, Kalaimathy Kauko, Leni Lund, Riikka J. Laiho, Asta Elo, Laura L. BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Detection of copy number variations (CNVs) from high-throughput next-generation whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data has become a widely used research method during the recent years. However, only a little is known about the applicability of the developed algorithms to ultra-low-coverage (0.0005–0.8×) data that is used in various research and clinical applications, such as digital karyotyping and single-cell CNV detection. RESULT: Here, the performance of six popular read-depth based CNV detection algorithms (BIC-seq2, Canvas, CNVnator, FREEC, HMMcopy, and QDNAseq) was studied using ultra-low-coverage WGS data. Real-world array- and karyotyping kit-based validation were used as a benchmark in the evaluation. Additionally, ultra-low-coverage WGS data was simulated to investigate the ability of the algorithms to identify CNVs in the sex chromosomes and the theoretical minimum coverage at which these tools can accurately function. Our results suggest that while all the methods were able to detect large CNVs, many methods were susceptible to producing false positives when smaller CNVs (< 2 Mbp) were detected. There was also significant variability in their ability to identify CNVs in the sex chromosomes. Overall, BIC-seq2 was found to be the best method in terms of statistical performance. However, its significant drawback was by far the slowest runtime among the methods (> 3 h) compared with FREEC (~ 3 min), which we considered the second-best method. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis demonstrates that CNV detection from ultra-low-coverage WGS data can be a highly accurate method for the detection of large copy number variations when their length is in millions of base pairs. These findings facilitate applications that utilize ultra-low-coverage CNV detection. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-021-07686-z. BioMed Central 2021-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8130438/ /pubmed/34000988 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07686-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Smolander, Johannes Khan, Sofia Singaravelu, Kalaimathy Kauko, Leni Lund, Riikka J. Laiho, Asta Elo, Laura L. Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data |
title | Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data |
title_full | Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data |
title_short | Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data |
title_sort | evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34000988 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07686-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smolanderjohannes evaluationoftoolsforidentifyinglargecopynumbervariationsfromultralowcoveragewholegenomesequencingdata AT khansofia evaluationoftoolsforidentifyinglargecopynumbervariationsfromultralowcoveragewholegenomesequencingdata AT singaravelukalaimathy evaluationoftoolsforidentifyinglargecopynumbervariationsfromultralowcoveragewholegenomesequencingdata AT kaukoleni evaluationoftoolsforidentifyinglargecopynumbervariationsfromultralowcoveragewholegenomesequencingdata AT lundriikkaj evaluationoftoolsforidentifyinglargecopynumbervariationsfromultralowcoveragewholegenomesequencingdata AT laihoasta evaluationoftoolsforidentifyinglargecopynumbervariationsfromultralowcoveragewholegenomesequencingdata AT elolaural evaluationoftoolsforidentifyinglargecopynumbervariationsfromultralowcoveragewholegenomesequencingdata |