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