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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |