全基因组测序中多样本变异调用方法的比较。

Kwangsik Nho, John D West, Huian Li, Robert Henschel, Apoorva Bharthur, Michel C Tavares, Andrew J Saykin
{"title":"全基因组测序中多样本变异调用方法的比较。","authors":"Kwangsik Nho,&nbsp;John D West,&nbsp;Huian Li,&nbsp;Robert Henschel,&nbsp;Apoorva Bharthur,&nbsp;Michel C Tavares,&nbsp;Andrew J Saykin","doi":"10.1109/ISB.2014.6990432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rapid advancement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has facilitated the search for genetic susceptibility factors that influence disease risk in the field of human genetics. In particular whole genome sequencing (WGS) has been used to obtain the most comprehensive genetic variation of an individual and perform detailed evaluation of all genetic variation. To this end, sophisticated methods to accurately call high-quality variants and genotypes simultaneously on a cohort of individuals from raw sequence data are required. On chromosome 22 of 818 WGS data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), which is the largest WGS related to a single disease, we compared two multi-sample variant calling methods for the detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and short insertions and deletions (indels) in WGS: (1) reduce the analysis-ready reads (BAM) file to a manageable size by keeping only essential information for variant calling (\"<i>REDUCE</i>\") and (2) call variants individually on each sample and then perform a joint genotyping analysis of the variant files produced for all samples in a cohort (\"<i>JOINT</i>\"). <i>JOINT</i> identified 515,210 SNVs and 60,042 indels, while <i>REDUCE</i> identified 358,303 SNVs and 52,855 indels. <i>JOINT</i> identified many more SNVs and indels compared to <i>REDUCE</i>. Both methods had concordance rate of 99.60% for SNVs and 99.06% for indels. For SNVs, evaluation with HumanOmni 2.5M genotyping arrays revealed a concordance rate of 99.68% for <i>JOINT</i> and 99.50% for <i>REDUCE</i>. <i>REDUCE</i> needed more computational time and memory compared to <i>JOINT</i>. Our findings indicate that the multi-sample variant calling method using the <i>JOINT</i> process is a promising strategy for the variant detection, which should facilitate our understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of human diseases.</p>","PeriodicalId":90521,"journal":{"name":"IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology : [proceedings]. IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1109/ISB.2014.6990432","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Multi-Sample Variant Calling Methods for Whole Genome Sequencing.\",\"authors\":\"Kwangsik Nho,&nbsp;John D West,&nbsp;Huian Li,&nbsp;Robert Henschel,&nbsp;Apoorva Bharthur,&nbsp;Michel C Tavares,&nbsp;Andrew J Saykin\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ISB.2014.6990432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Rapid advancement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has facilitated the search for genetic susceptibility factors that influence disease risk in the field of human genetics. In particular whole genome sequencing (WGS) has been used to obtain the most comprehensive genetic variation of an individual and perform detailed evaluation of all genetic variation. To this end, sophisticated methods to accurately call high-quality variants and genotypes simultaneously on a cohort of individuals from raw sequence data are required. On chromosome 22 of 818 WGS data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), which is the largest WGS related to a single disease, we compared two multi-sample variant calling methods for the detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and short insertions and deletions (indels) in WGS: (1) reduce the analysis-ready reads (BAM) file to a manageable size by keeping only essential information for variant calling (\\\"<i>REDUCE</i>\\\") and (2) call variants individually on each sample and then perform a joint genotyping analysis of the variant files produced for all samples in a cohort (\\\"<i>JOINT</i>\\\"). <i>JOINT</i> identified 515,210 SNVs and 60,042 indels, while <i>REDUCE</i> identified 358,303 SNVs and 52,855 indels. <i>JOINT</i> identified many more SNVs and indels compared to <i>REDUCE</i>. Both methods had concordance rate of 99.60% for SNVs and 99.06% for indels. For SNVs, evaluation with HumanOmni 2.5M genotyping arrays revealed a concordance rate of 99.68% for <i>JOINT</i> and 99.50% for <i>REDUCE</i>. <i>REDUCE</i> needed more computational time and memory compared to <i>JOINT</i>. Our findings indicate that the multi-sample variant calling method using the <i>JOINT</i> process is a promising strategy for the variant detection, which should facilitate our understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of human diseases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":90521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology : [proceedings]. IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1109/ISB.2014.6990432\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology : [proceedings]. IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISB.2014.6990432\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology : [proceedings]. IEEE International Conference on Systems Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISB.2014.6990432","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

新一代测序(NGS)技术的快速发展促进了人类遗传学领域对影响疾病风险的遗传易感因素的研究。特别是全基因组测序(WGS)已被用于获得个体最全面的遗传变异,并对所有遗传变异进行详细的评估。为此,需要复杂的方法来准确地从原始序列数据中同时调用一组个体的高质量变异和基因型。在来自阿尔茨海默病神经成像计划(ADNI)的818 WGS数据的22号染色体上,我们比较了检测WGS中单核苷酸变异(snv)和短插入和缺失(indels)的两种多样本变体调用方法:(1)通过仅保留变体调用的基本信息(“reduce”),将分析准备读取(BAM)文件减少到可管理的大小;(2)对每个样本单独调用变体,然后对队列中所有样本生成的变体文件执行联合基因分型分析(“joint”)。JOINT识别出515,210个snv和60,042个索引,而REDUCE识别出358,303个snv和52,855个索引。与REDUCE相比,JOINT识别了更多的snv和索引。两种方法对snv和索引的符合率分别为99.60%和99.06%。对于snv,使用HumanOmni 250 m基因分型阵列进行评估显示,JOINT和REDUCE的一致性率分别为99.68%和99.50%。与JOINT相比,REDUCE需要更多的计算时间和内存。我们的研究结果表明,使用联合过程的多样本变异调用方法是一种很有前途的变异检测策略,它将有助于我们了解人类疾病的潜在发病机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Multi-Sample Variant Calling Methods for Whole Genome Sequencing.

Comparison of Multi-Sample Variant Calling Methods for Whole Genome Sequencing.

Comparison of Multi-Sample Variant Calling Methods for Whole Genome Sequencing.

Rapid advancement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has facilitated the search for genetic susceptibility factors that influence disease risk in the field of human genetics. In particular whole genome sequencing (WGS) has been used to obtain the most comprehensive genetic variation of an individual and perform detailed evaluation of all genetic variation. To this end, sophisticated methods to accurately call high-quality variants and genotypes simultaneously on a cohort of individuals from raw sequence data are required. On chromosome 22 of 818 WGS data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), which is the largest WGS related to a single disease, we compared two multi-sample variant calling methods for the detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and short insertions and deletions (indels) in WGS: (1) reduce the analysis-ready reads (BAM) file to a manageable size by keeping only essential information for variant calling ("REDUCE") and (2) call variants individually on each sample and then perform a joint genotyping analysis of the variant files produced for all samples in a cohort ("JOINT"). JOINT identified 515,210 SNVs and 60,042 indels, while REDUCE identified 358,303 SNVs and 52,855 indels. JOINT identified many more SNVs and indels compared to REDUCE. Both methods had concordance rate of 99.60% for SNVs and 99.06% for indels. For SNVs, evaluation with HumanOmni 2.5M genotyping arrays revealed a concordance rate of 99.68% for JOINT and 99.50% for REDUCE. REDUCE needed more computational time and memory compared to JOINT. Our findings indicate that the multi-sample variant calling method using the JOINT process is a promising strategy for the variant detection, which should facilitate our understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of human diseases.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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