Abstract

BackgroundGenotyping of structural variation is an important computational problem in next generation sequence data analysis. However, in cancer genomes, the copy number variant(CNV) often coexists with other types of structural variations which significantly reduces the accuracy of the existing genotype methods. The bias on sequencing coverage and variant allelic frequency can be observed on a CNV region, which leads to the genotyping approaches that misinterpret the heterozygote as a homozygote. Furthermore, other data signals such as split mapped read, abnormal read will also be misjudged because of the CNV. Therefore, genotyping the structural variations with CNV is a complicated computational problem which should consider multiple features and their interactions.MethodsHere we proposed a computational method for genotyping indels in the CNV region, which introduced a machine learning framework to comprehensively incorporate a set of data features and their interactions. We extracted fifteen kinds of classification features as input and different from the traditional genotyping problem, here the structure of variant may fall into types of normal homozygote, homozygous variant, heterozygous variant without CNV, heterozygous variant with a CNV on the mutated haplotype, and heterozygous variant with a CNV on the wild haplotype. The Multiclass Relevance Vector Machine (M-RVM) was used as a machine learning framework combined with the distribution characteristics of the features.ResultsWe applied the proposed method to both simulated and real data, and compared it with the existing popular softwares include Gindel, Facets, GATK, and also compared with other machine learning cores: Support Vector Machine, Lanrange-SVM with OVO multiple classification, Naïve Bayes and BP Neural Network. The results demonstrated that the proposed method outperforms others on accuracy, stability and efficiency.ConclusionThis work shows that the genotyping of structural variations on the CNV region cannot be solved as a traditional genotyping problem. More features should be used to efficiently complete the five-category task. According to the result, the proposed method can be a practical algorithm to correct genotype structural variations with CNV on the next generation sequence data. The source codes have been uploaded at https://github.com/TrinaZ/Mixgenotypefor academic usage only.

Highlights

  • Genotyping of structural variation is an important computational problem in generation sequence data analysis

  • Based on the distribution probability of copy number variant (CNV), we created 60 Type N calls, 80 Type G1 calls, 80 Type G2 candidates, 50 Type G3 candidates and 30 Type G4 calls (CNV occur in wild haplotype heterozygote)

  • The accuracy refers to the ratio of the number of samples correctly classified by the classifier to the total number of samples for a given test dataset, and the relevant vector refers to the nonzero parameter corresponding point, which reflects the characteristics of the training data onto the reason that most of the parameters of the posterior distribution tend to zero and has nothing to do with forecast [29]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Genotyping of structural variation is an important computational problem in generation sequence data analysis. In cancer genomes, the copy number variant(CNV) often coexists with other types of structural variations which significantly reduces the accuracy of the existing genotype methods. Genotyping the structural variations with CNV is a complicated computational problem which should consider multiple features and their interactions. Structural variations(SVs) generally refer to cytogenetically visible and submicroscopic variants, including insertion, deletion, inversion, copy number variant and etc [1, 2]. The genotype of SVs, known as genotype analysis, is a technique to determine whether the structural variation is heterozygous or homozygous [3]. Obtaining the accurate genotypes of SVs can be widely used in downstream analysis, such as imputing genotypes [4], estimating genomic diversity [5], calculating linkage disequilibrium [6] and clinical practices including disease diagnosis [7], treatment management [8] and drug design [9]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call