Reliably Detecting Clinically Important Variants Requires Both Combined Variant Calls and Optimized Filtering
Matthew A Field1,2, Vicky Cho1,3, T Daniel Andrews1,2
1Department of Immunology, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Abstract:
A diversity of tools is available for identification of variants from genome sequence data. Given the current complexity of incorporating external software into a genome analysis infrastructure, a tendency exists to rely on the results from a single tool alone. The quality of the output variant calls is highly variable however, depending on factors such as sequence library quality as well as the choice of short-read aligner, variant caller, and variant caller filtering strategy. Here we present a two-part study first using the high quality 'genome in a bottle' reference set to demonstrate the significant impact the choice of aligner, variant caller, and variant caller filtering strategy has on overall variant call quality and further how certain variant callers outperform others with increased sample contamination, an important consideration when analyzing sequenced cancer samples. This analysis confirms previous work showing that combining variant calls of multiple tools results in the best quality resultant variant set, for either specificity or sensitivity, depending on whether the intersection or union, of all variant calls is used respectively. Second, we analyze a melanoma cell line derived from a control lymphocyte sample to determine whether software choices affect the detection of clinically important melanoma risk-factor variants finding that only one of the three such variants is unanimously detected under all conditions. Finally, we describe a cogent strategy for implementing a clinical variant detection pipeline; a strategy that requires careful software selection, variant caller filtering optimizing, and combined variant calls in order to effectively minimize false negative variants. While implementing such features represents an increase in complexity and computation the results offer indisputable improvements in data quality.
More Related Videos
07:15Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation
Published on: January 16, 2019
09:34Targeted Next-generation Sequencing and Bioinformatics Pipeline to Evaluate Genetic Determinants of Constitutional Disease
Published on: April 4, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacogenomics: Identification of New Drug Targets
Principles of Pharmacogenetics: Types of Genetic Variants
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...
Genetic Screens
Forward genetic screens
Forward or “classical” genetic screens involve creating random mutations in an organism’s DNA using radiation, mutagens, or insertion of additional bases, which...
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
