Cargando…

Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection

BACKGROUND: Genomic structural variations (SV) are important determinants of genotypic and phenotypic changes in many organisms. However, the detection of SV from next-generation sequencing data remains challenging. RESULTS: In this study, DNA from a Chinese family quartet is sequenced at three diff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khayat, Michael M., Sahraeian, Sayed Mohammad Ebrahim, Zarate, Samantha, Carroll, Andrew, Hong, Huixiao, Pan, Bohu, Shi, Leming, Gibbs, Richard A., Mohiyuddin, Marghoob, Zheng, Yuanting, Sedlazeck, Fritz J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34930391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02558-x
_version_ 1784618054551863296
author Khayat, Michael M.
Sahraeian, Sayed Mohammad Ebrahim
Zarate, Samantha
Carroll, Andrew
Hong, Huixiao
Pan, Bohu
Shi, Leming
Gibbs, Richard A.
Mohiyuddin, Marghoob
Zheng, Yuanting
Sedlazeck, Fritz J.
author_facet Khayat, Michael M.
Sahraeian, Sayed Mohammad Ebrahim
Zarate, Samantha
Carroll, Andrew
Hong, Huixiao
Pan, Bohu
Shi, Leming
Gibbs, Richard A.
Mohiyuddin, Marghoob
Zheng, Yuanting
Sedlazeck, Fritz J.
author_sort Khayat, Michael M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Genomic structural variations (SV) are important determinants of genotypic and phenotypic changes in many organisms. However, the detection of SV from next-generation sequencing data remains challenging. RESULTS: In this study, DNA from a Chinese family quartet is sequenced at three different sequencing centers in triplicate. A total of 288 derivative data sets are generated utilizing different analysis pipelines and compared to identify sources of analytical variability. Mapping methods provide the major contribution to variability, followed by sequencing centers and replicates. Interestingly, SV supported by only one center or replicate often represent true positives with 47.02% and 45.44% overlapping the long-read SV call set, respectively. This is consistent with an overall higher false negative rate for SV calling in centers and replicates compared to mappers (15.72%). Finally, we observe that the SV calling variability also persists in a genotyping approach, indicating the impact of the underlying sequencing and preparation approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first detailed insights into the sources of variability in SV identification from next-generation sequencing and highlights remaining challenges in SV calling for large cohorts. We further give recommendations on how to reduce SV calling variability and the choice of alignment methodology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13059-021-02558-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8686633
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86866332021-12-21 Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection Khayat, Michael M. Sahraeian, Sayed Mohammad Ebrahim Zarate, Samantha Carroll, Andrew Hong, Huixiao Pan, Bohu Shi, Leming Gibbs, Richard A. Mohiyuddin, Marghoob Zheng, Yuanting Sedlazeck, Fritz J. Genome Biol Research BACKGROUND: Genomic structural variations (SV) are important determinants of genotypic and phenotypic changes in many organisms. However, the detection of SV from next-generation sequencing data remains challenging. RESULTS: In this study, DNA from a Chinese family quartet is sequenced at three different sequencing centers in triplicate. A total of 288 derivative data sets are generated utilizing different analysis pipelines and compared to identify sources of analytical variability. Mapping methods provide the major contribution to variability, followed by sequencing centers and replicates. Interestingly, SV supported by only one center or replicate often represent true positives with 47.02% and 45.44% overlapping the long-read SV call set, respectively. This is consistent with an overall higher false negative rate for SV calling in centers and replicates compared to mappers (15.72%). Finally, we observe that the SV calling variability also persists in a genotyping approach, indicating the impact of the underlying sequencing and preparation approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first detailed insights into the sources of variability in SV identification from next-generation sequencing and highlights remaining challenges in SV calling for large cohorts. We further give recommendations on how to reduce SV calling variability and the choice of alignment methodology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13059-021-02558-x. BioMed Central 2021-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8686633/ /pubmed/34930391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02558-x 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
Khayat, Michael M.
Sahraeian, Sayed Mohammad Ebrahim
Zarate, Samantha
Carroll, Andrew
Hong, Huixiao
Pan, Bohu
Shi, Leming
Gibbs, Richard A.
Mohiyuddin, Marghoob
Zheng, Yuanting
Sedlazeck, Fritz J.
Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection
title Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection
title_full Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection
title_fullStr Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection
title_full_unstemmed Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection
title_short Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection
title_sort hidden biases in germline structural variant detection
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34930391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02558-x
work_keys_str_mv AT khayatmichaelm hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT sahraeiansayedmohammadebrahim hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT zaratesamantha hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT carrollandrew hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT honghuixiao hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT panbohu hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT shileming hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT gibbsricharda hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT mohiyuddinmarghoob hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT zhengyuanting hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection
AT sedlazeckfritzj hiddenbiasesingermlinestructuralvariantdetection