Abstract

BackgroundAccurate copy number variant (CNV) detection is especially challenging for both targeted sequencing (TS) and whole‐exome sequencing (WES) data. To maximize the performance, the parameters of the CNV calling algorithms should be optimized for each specific dataset. This requires obtaining validated CNV information using either multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) or array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). They are gold standard but time-consuming and costly approaches.ResultsWe present isoCNV which optimizes the parameters of DECoN algorithm using only NGS data. The parameter optimization process is performed using an in silico CNV validated dataset obtained from the overlapping calls of three algorithms: CNVkit, panelcn.MOPS and DECoN. We evaluated the performance of our tool and showed that increases the sensitivity in both TS and WES real datasets.ConclusionsisoCNV provides an easy-to-use pipeline to optimize DECoN that allows the detection of analysis-ready CNV from a set of DNA alignments obtained under the same conditions. It increases the sensitivity of DECoN without the need for orthogonal methods. isoCNV is available at https://gitlab.com/sequentiateampublic/isocnv.

Highlights

  • Accurate copy number variant (CNV) detection is especially challeng‐ ing for both targeted sequencing (TS) and whole‐exome sequencing (WES) data

  • In silico validation dataset The total copy number variants identified per regions of interest (ROI), for each calling tool and dataset, is shown in a Venn diagram (Fig. 2)

  • It is shown that the total number of CNVs per ROI varies across algorithms

Read more

Summary

Results

In silico validation dataset The total copy number variants identified per ROI, for each calling tool and dataset, is shown in a Venn diagram (Fig. 2). It is shown that the total number of CNVs per ROI varies across algorithms. In both datasets, panelcn.MOPS identified the greatest number of CNVs whereas DECoN identified the least number. The overlapped CNVs per ROI between the three call sets were 205 in the TS dataset (ICR96) and 693 in the WES

Background
Method
Conclusions

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.