CancersBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
A comparison of tools for copy-number variation detection in germline whole exome and whole genome sequencing data
Miglė GabrielaitėiD, Mathias Husted TorpiD, Malthe Sebro RasmusseniD, Sergio Andreu‐SáncheziD, Filipe Garrett VieiraiD, Christina Bligaard PederseniD, Savvas KinalisiD, Majbritt Busk MadseniD, Miyako KodamaiD, Gül Sude Demircan, Arman SimonyaniD, Christina Westmose YdeiD, Lars Rønn OlseniD, Rasmus L. MarvigiD, Oľga Østrup, Maria RossingiD, Finn Cilius NielseniD, Ole WintheriD, Frederik Otzen BaggeriD
Abstract
BackgroundCopy-number variations (CNVs) have important clinical implications for several diseases and cancers. The clinically relevant CNVs are hard to detect because CNVs are common structural variations that define large parts of the normal human genome. CNV calling from short-read sequencing data has the potential to leverage available cohort studies and allow full genomic profiling in the clinic without the need for additional data modalities. Questions regarding performance of CNV calling tools for clinical use and suitable sequencing protocols remain poorly addressed, mainly because of the lack of good reference data sets. MethodsWe reviewed 50 popular CNV calling tools and included 11 tools for benchmarking in a unique reference cohort encompassing 39 whole genome sequencing (WGS) samples paired with analysis by the current clinical standard --SNP-array based CNV calling. Additionally, for nine of these samples we performed whole exome sequencing (WES) performed, in order to address the effect of sequencing protocol on CNV calling. Furthermore, we included Gold Standard reference sample NA12878, and tested 12 samples with CNVs confirmed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). ResultsTool performance varied greatly in the number of called CNVs and bias for CNV lengths. Some tools had near-perfect recall of CNVs from arrays for some samples, but poor precision. Filtering output by CNV ranks from tools did not salvage precision. Several tools had better performance patterns for NA12878, and we hypothesize that this is the result of overfitting during the tool development. ConclusionsWe suggest combining tools with the best recall: GATK gCNV, Lumpy, DELLY, and cn.MOPS. These tools also capture different CNVs. Further improvements in precision requires additional development of tools, reference data sets, and annotation of CNVs, potentially assisted by the use of background panels for filtering of frequently called variants.
- organism: human
- assay: whole-exome sequencing
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: benchmark study
- Citations
- 111
- FWCI
- 10.47
- Field percentile
- top 1%
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
- Benchmarking of Germline Copy Number Variant Callers from Whole Genome Sequencing Data for Clinical Applications
Francisco M. De La Vega, Sean A. Irvine, … James Han·Bioinformatics AdvancesPeer-reviewed·Dec 26, 2024
- ClinCNV: multi-sample germline CNV detection in NGS data
German M. Demidov, Marc Sturm, Stephan Ossowski·bioRxiv·Jun 10, 2022
- Clustering-based optimization method of reference set selection for improved CNV callers performance
Wiktor Kuśmirek, Agnieszka Szmurło, … Tomasz Gambin·bioRxiv·Nov 25, 2018
- Polishing Copy Number Variant Calls on Exome Sequencing Data via Deep Learning
Furkan Özden, Can Alkan, A. Ercüment Çiçek·bioRxiv·May 9, 2020
- ExactCN: Predicting Exact Copy Numbers on Whole Exome Sequencing Data
Erfan FarhangKia, Ahmet Arda Ceylan, … A. Ercüment Çiçek·bioRxiv·Nov 24, 2025
- SavvyCNV: genome-wide CNV calling from off-target reads
Thomas William Laver, Elisa De Franco, … Matthew Neil Wakeling·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Mar 16, 2022