药物基因组学基因分型工具基准:短线程测序样本的性能分析和深度依赖性评估。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Andreas Halman, Sebastian Lunke, Simon Sadedin, Claire Moore, Rachel Conyers
{"title":"药物基因组学基因分型工具基准:短线程测序样本的性能分析和深度依赖性评估。","authors":"Andreas Halman,&nbsp;Sebastian Lunke,&nbsp;Simon Sadedin,&nbsp;Claire Moore,&nbsp;Rachel Conyers","doi":"10.1111/cts.13911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Pharmacogenomics (PGx) investigates the influence of genetics on drug responses, enabling tailored treatments for personalized healthcare. This study assessed the accuracy of genotyping six genes using whole genome sequencing with four different computational tools and various sequencing depths. The effects of using different reference genomes (GRCh38 and GRCh37) and sequence aligners (BWA-MEM and Bowtie2) were also explored. The results showed generally minor variations in tool performance across most genes; however, more notable discrepancies were observed in the analysis of the complex <i>CYP2D6</i> gene. Cyrius, a <i>CYP2D6</i>-specific tool, demonstrated the most robust performance, achieving the highest concordance rates for <i>CYP2D6</i> in all instances, comparable to the consensus approach in most cases. There were rather small differences between the samples with 20× coverage depth and those with higher depth, but the decreased performance was more evident at lower depths, particularly at 5×. Additionally, variations in <i>CYP2D6</i> results were observed when samples were aligned to different reference genomes using the same method, or to the same genome using different aligners, which led to reporting incorrect rare star alleles in several cases. These findings inform the selection of optimal PGx tools and methodologies as well as suggest that employing a consensus approach with two or more tools might be preferable for certain genes and tool combinations, especially at lower sequencing depths, to ensure accurate results. Additionally, we show how the upstream alignment can affect the performance of tools, an important factor to take into account.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"17 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11315677/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking pharmacogenomics genotyping tools: Performance analysis on short-read sequencing samples and depth-dependent evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Halman,&nbsp;Sebastian Lunke,&nbsp;Simon Sadedin,&nbsp;Claire Moore,&nbsp;Rachel Conyers\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cts.13911\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Pharmacogenomics (PGx) investigates the influence of genetics on drug responses, enabling tailored treatments for personalized healthcare. This study assessed the accuracy of genotyping six genes using whole genome sequencing with four different computational tools and various sequencing depths. The effects of using different reference genomes (GRCh38 and GRCh37) and sequence aligners (BWA-MEM and Bowtie2) were also explored. The results showed generally minor variations in tool performance across most genes; however, more notable discrepancies were observed in the analysis of the complex <i>CYP2D6</i> gene. Cyrius, a <i>CYP2D6</i>-specific tool, demonstrated the most robust performance, achieving the highest concordance rates for <i>CYP2D6</i> in all instances, comparable to the consensus approach in most cases. There were rather small differences between the samples with 20× coverage depth and those with higher depth, but the decreased performance was more evident at lower depths, particularly at 5×. Additionally, variations in <i>CYP2D6</i> results were observed when samples were aligned to different reference genomes using the same method, or to the same genome using different aligners, which led to reporting incorrect rare star alleles in several cases. These findings inform the selection of optimal PGx tools and methodologies as well as suggest that employing a consensus approach with two or more tools might be preferable for certain genes and tool combinations, especially at lower sequencing depths, to ensure accurate results. Additionally, we show how the upstream alignment can affect the performance of tools, an important factor to take into account.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"17 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11315677/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.13911\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.13911","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

药物基因组学(PGx)研究基因对药物反应的影响,为个性化医疗提供量身定制的治疗方案。这项研究评估了利用全基因组测序技术,采用四种不同的计算工具和不同的测序深度对六个基因进行基因分型的准确性。研究还探讨了使用不同参考基因组(GRCh38 和 GRCh37)和序列比对器(BWA-MEM 和 Bowtie2)的影响。结果表明,在大多数基因中,工具性能的差异一般较小;但在分析复杂的 CYP2D6 基因时,观察到了更明显的差异。CYP2D6 专属工具 Cyrius 表现出了最强大的性能,在所有情况下都达到了最高的 CYP2D6 一致性,在大多数情况下与共识方法不相上下。覆盖深度为 20 倍的样本与覆盖深度更高的样本之间的差异很小,但在覆盖深度较低时,尤其是在覆盖深度为 5 倍时,性能下降更为明显。此外,当使用相同方法将样本与不同的参考基因组进行比对,或使用不同的比对器将样本与相同的基因组进行比对时,CYP2D6 的比对结果也会出现差异,这导致在一些情况下报告了错误的稀有明星等位基因。这些发现为选择最佳的 PGx 工具和方法提供了参考,并表明对于某些基因和工具组合,尤其是在较低的测序深度下,采用两种或两种以上工具的共识方法可能更可取,以确保结果的准确性。此外,我们还展示了上游比对如何影响工具的性能,这也是需要考虑的一个重要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Benchmarking pharmacogenomics genotyping tools: Performance analysis on short-read sequencing samples and depth-dependent evaluation

Benchmarking pharmacogenomics genotyping tools: Performance analysis on short-read sequencing samples and depth-dependent evaluation

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) investigates the influence of genetics on drug responses, enabling tailored treatments for personalized healthcare. This study assessed the accuracy of genotyping six genes using whole genome sequencing with four different computational tools and various sequencing depths. The effects of using different reference genomes (GRCh38 and GRCh37) and sequence aligners (BWA-MEM and Bowtie2) were also explored. The results showed generally minor variations in tool performance across most genes; however, more notable discrepancies were observed in the analysis of the complex CYP2D6 gene. Cyrius, a CYP2D6-specific tool, demonstrated the most robust performance, achieving the highest concordance rates for CYP2D6 in all instances, comparable to the consensus approach in most cases. There were rather small differences between the samples with 20× coverage depth and those with higher depth, but the decreased performance was more evident at lower depths, particularly at 5×. Additionally, variations in CYP2D6 results were observed when samples were aligned to different reference genomes using the same method, or to the same genome using different aligners, which led to reporting incorrect rare star alleles in several cases. These findings inform the selection of optimal PGx tools and methodologies as well as suggest that employing a consensus approach with two or more tools might be preferable for certain genes and tool combinations, especially at lower sequencing depths, to ensure accurate results. Additionally, we show how the upstream alignment can affect the performance of tools, an important factor to take into account.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信