Cancer ResearchGenomicsPeer-reviewed journal article
Mis-annotated multi nucleotide variants in public cancer genomics datasets can lead to inaccurate mutation calls with significant implications
Sujaya SrinivasaniD, Natallia KalinavaiD, Rafael AldanaiD, Zhipan LiiD, Sjoerd van HageniD, Sander Y.A. RodenburgiD, Megan Wind‐RotoloiD, Ariella SassoniD, Hao TangiD, Xiaozhong QianiD, Stefan A. KiroviD
Abstract
BackgroundNext generation sequencing is widely used in cancer to profile tumors and detect variants. Most somatic variant callers used in these pipelines identify variants at the lowest possible granularity - single nucleotide variants (SNVs). As a result, multiple adjacent SNVs are called individually instead of as a multi-nucleotide variant (MNV). The problem with this level of granularity is that the amino acid change from the individual SNVs within a codon could be different from the amino acid change based on the MNV that results from combining the SNVs. Most variant annotation tools do not account for this, leading to incorrect conclusions about the downstream effects of the variants. MethodHere, we used Variant Call Files (VCFs) from the TCGA Mutect2 caller, and developed a solution to merge SNVs to MNVs. Our custom script takes the phasing information from the SNV VCFs and based on a gene model, determines if SNVs are at the same codon and need to be merged into a MNV prior to variant annotation. ResultsWe analyzed 10,383 VCFs from TCGA and found 12,141 MNVs that were incorrectly annotated. Strikingly, the analysis of seven commonly mutated genes from 178 studies from cBioPortal revealed that MNVs were consistently missed in 20 of these studies, while they were correctly annotated in 15 more recent studies. The best and most common example of MNVs was found at the BRAF V600 locus, where several public datasets reported separate BRAF V600E and BRAF V600M variants, instead of a single merged V600K variant. ConclusionWhile some datasets merged MNVs correctly, many public datasets have not been corrected for this problem. As a best practice for variant calling, we recommend that MNVs be accounted for in NGS processing pipelines, thus improving analyses on the impact of somatic variants in cancer genomics.
- organism: human
- assay: whole-exome sequencing
- research focus: variant effect prediction
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 17
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Field percentile
- top 44%
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
- The consequences of variant calling decisions in secondary analyses of cancer sequencing data
Carlos Antonio García-Prieto, Francisco Martínez-Jiménez, … Eduard Porta‐Pardo·bioRxiv·Jan 29, 2020
- CSN and CAVA: variant annotation tools for rapid, robust next-generation sequencing analysis in the clinic
Márton Münz, Elise Ruark, … Nazneen Rahman·bioRxiv·Mar 21, 2015
- Landscape of multi-nucleotide variants in 125,748 human exomes and 15,708 genomes
Qingbo S. Wang, Emma Pierce‐Hoffman, … George Kirov·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·May 27, 2020
- The Impact of Variant Calling on Substitution Mutational Signature Inference
Zichen Jiang, Jessica N. Au, … Ludmil B. Alexandrov·bioRxiv·Dec 12, 2025
- A Comprehensive Assessment of Somatic Mutation Calling in Cancer Genomes
Tyler S Alioto, Sophia Derdak, … Rolf Kab·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Dec 9, 2015
- Samovar: Single-sample mosaic SNV calling with linked reads
Charlotte A. Darby, James Fitch, … Michael C. Schatz·iSciencePeer-reviewed·May 29, 2019