Bioinformatics AdvancesGenetic & Genomic MedicinePeer-reviewed journal article
Benchmarking of Germline Copy Number Variant Callers from Whole Genome Sequencing Data for Clinical Applications
Francisco M. De La VegaiD, Sean A. IrvineiD, Pavana Anur, Kelly A. PottsiD, Lewis J. KraftiD, Raul Torres, Hyunseok Peter KangiD, Sean TruongiD, Yeonghun LeeiD, Shunhua HaniD, Vitor OnuchiciD, James HaniD
Abstract
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly favored over other genomic sequencing methods for clinical applications due to its comprehensive coverage and declining costs. WGS is particularly useful for the detection of copy number variants (CNVs), presumed to be more accurate than targeted sequencing assays such as WES or gene panels, because it can identify breakpoints in addition to changes in coverage depth. Recent advancements in bioinformatics tools, including those employing hardware acceleration and machine learning, have enhanced CNV detection. Although numerous benchmarking studies have been published, primarily focusing on open-source tools for short-read WGS CNV calling, systematic evaluations that encompass commercially available tools that meet the rigorous demands of clinical testing are still necessary. In clinical settings, where the confirmation of reported CNVs is often required, there is a higher priority on sensitivity over specificity/precision compared to research applications. Moreover, clinical gene panel reporting primarily concerns whether a CNV affects coding regions or, in some cases, promoters, rather than the precise detection of breakpoints. This study aims to benchmark the performance of various CNV detection tools tailored for clinical reporting from WGS using reference cell lines, providing insights critical for optimizing clinical diagnostics. Our results indicate that while different tools exhibit strengths in either sensitivity or precision and are better suited for certain classes and lengths of variants, few can deliver the balanced performance essential for clinical testing, where high sensitivity is imperative. Generally, callers demonstrate better performance for deletions than duplications, with the latter being poorly detected in events shorter than 5kb. We demonstrate that the DRAGEN v4.2 CNV caller, particularly with custom filters on its high sensitivity mode, offers a superior balance of sensitivity and precision compared to other available tools.
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- research focus: variant calling
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: variant effect prediction
- approach: benchmark study
- Citations
- 8
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Field percentile
- top 12%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A comparison of tools for copy-number variation detection in germline whole exome and whole genome sequencing data
Miglė Gabrielaitė, Mathias Husted Torp, … Frederik Otzen Bagger·CancersPeer-reviewed·Dec 14, 2021
- JAX-CNV: A whole genome sequencing-based algorithm for copy number detection at clinical grade level
Wan‐Ping Lee, Qihui Zhu, … Chengsheng Zhang·Genomics Proteomics & BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 24, 2022
- Evaluation of the performance of copy number variant prediction tools for the detection of deletions from whole genome sequencing data
Whitney Whitford, Klaus Lehnert, … Jessie C. Jacobsen·Journal of Biomedical InformaticsPeer-reviewed·Apr 6, 2019
- ClinCNV: multi-sample germline CNV detection in NGS data
German M. Demidov, Marc Sturm, Stephan Ossowski·bioRxiv·Jun 10, 2022
- Copy number variants in clinical WGS: deployment and interpretation for rare and undiagnosed disease
Andrew M. Gross, Subramanian S. Ajay, … Ryan J. Taft·Genetics in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Oct 3, 2018
- Whole-genome sequencing analysis of copy number variation (CNV) using low-coverage and paired-end strategies is efficient and outperforms array-based CNV analysis
Bo Zhou, Steve S. Ho, … Alexander Eckehart Urban·Journal of Medical GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jul 30, 2018