Cargando…

Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a powerful screening method for fetal aneuploidy detection, relying on laboratory and computational analysis of cell-free DNA. Although several published computational NIPT analysis tools are available, no prior comprehensive, head-to-head accuracy comparison...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paluoja, Priit, Teder, Hindrek, Ardeshirdavani, Amin, Bayindir, Baran, Vermeesch, Joris, Salumets, Andres, Krjutškov, Kaarel, Palta, Priit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34928946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009684
_version_ 1784625574017236992
author Paluoja, Priit
Teder, Hindrek
Ardeshirdavani, Amin
Bayindir, Baran
Vermeesch, Joris
Salumets, Andres
Krjutškov, Kaarel
Palta, Priit
author_facet Paluoja, Priit
Teder, Hindrek
Ardeshirdavani, Amin
Bayindir, Baran
Vermeesch, Joris
Salumets, Andres
Krjutškov, Kaarel
Palta, Priit
author_sort Paluoja, Priit
collection PubMed
description Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a powerful screening method for fetal aneuploidy detection, relying on laboratory and computational analysis of cell-free DNA. Although several published computational NIPT analysis tools are available, no prior comprehensive, head-to-head accuracy comparison of the various tools has been published. Here, we compared the outcome accuracies obtained for clinically validated samples with five commonly used computational NIPT aneuploidy analysis tools (WisecondorX, NIPTeR, NIPTmer, RAPIDR, and GIPseq) across various sequencing depths (coverage) and fetal DNA fractions. The sample set included cases of fetal trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), and trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome). We determined that all of the compared tools were considerably affected by lower sequencing depths, such that increasing proportions of undetected trisomy cases (false negatives) were observed as the sequencing depth decreased. We summarised our benchmarking results and highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each computational NIPT software. To conclude, trisomy detection for lower coverage NIPT samples (e.g. 2.5M reads per sample) is technically possible but can, with some NIPT tools, produce troubling rates of inaccurate trisomy detection, especially in low-FF samples.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8722721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87227212022-01-04 Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples Paluoja, Priit Teder, Hindrek Ardeshirdavani, Amin Bayindir, Baran Vermeesch, Joris Salumets, Andres Krjutškov, Kaarel Palta, Priit PLoS Comput Biol Research Article Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a powerful screening method for fetal aneuploidy detection, relying on laboratory and computational analysis of cell-free DNA. Although several published computational NIPT analysis tools are available, no prior comprehensive, head-to-head accuracy comparison of the various tools has been published. Here, we compared the outcome accuracies obtained for clinically validated samples with five commonly used computational NIPT aneuploidy analysis tools (WisecondorX, NIPTeR, NIPTmer, RAPIDR, and GIPseq) across various sequencing depths (coverage) and fetal DNA fractions. The sample set included cases of fetal trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), and trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome). We determined that all of the compared tools were considerably affected by lower sequencing depths, such that increasing proportions of undetected trisomy cases (false negatives) were observed as the sequencing depth decreased. We summarised our benchmarking results and highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each computational NIPT software. To conclude, trisomy detection for lower coverage NIPT samples (e.g. 2.5M reads per sample) is technically possible but can, with some NIPT tools, produce troubling rates of inaccurate trisomy detection, especially in low-FF samples. Public Library of Science 2021-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8722721/ /pubmed/34928946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009684 Text en © 2021 Paluoja et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Paluoja, Priit
Teder, Hindrek
Ardeshirdavani, Amin
Bayindir, Baran
Vermeesch, Joris
Salumets, Andres
Krjutškov, Kaarel
Palta, Priit
Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples
title Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples
title_full Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples
title_fullStr Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples
title_full_unstemmed Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples
title_short Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples
title_sort systematic evaluation of nipt aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated nipt samples
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34928946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009684
work_keys_str_mv AT paluojapriit systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples
AT tederhindrek systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples
AT ardeshirdavaniamin systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples
AT bayindirbaran systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples
AT vermeeschjoris systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples
AT salumetsandres systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples
AT krjutskovkaarel systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples
AT paltapriit systematicevaluationofniptaneuploidydetectionsoftwaretoolswithclinicallyvalidatedniptsamples