Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs02:26

Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs

18.2K
Sequencing of the human genome has opened up several best-kept secrets of the genome. Scientists have identified thousands of genome variations that exist within a population. These variations can be a single nucleotide or a larger chromosomal variation.
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%...
18.2K
Genome Copying Errors02:46

Genome Copying Errors

4.6K
DNA replication is a well-evolved process that copies millions of base pairs with high fidelity during each cell division. Occasionally a wrong base or a long stretch of wrong bases may get added to the daughter strands. If the errors are left unchecked, cells might accumulate several mutations that might endanger their  survival. Therefore, the copying errors are checked and repaired at three levels.
4.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Synthesis and Cytotoxic Activity Study of Conjugates of N-Acyl Derivatives of 3,5-Bis(benzylidene)-4-piperidones and Phenothiazine.

International journal of molecular sciences·2026
Same author

Genomic surveillance of the pneumonia outbreak caused by <i>Mycoplasma pneumoniae</i> among patients in Russia from January 2024 to June 2025.

Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology·2026
Same author

Microbial communities of the upper respiratory tract in mild and severe COVID-19 patients: a possible link with the disease course.

Frontiers in microbiomes·2026
Same author

Systematic analysis of spontaneous tandem genome amplification events in Yersinia pestis.

PloS one·2025
Same author

Recombinant RGD-Apoptins Decrease Human Melanoma Cell Viability.

International journal of molecular sciences·2025
Same author

In-Depth Multi-Approach Analysis of WGS Metagenomics Data Reveals Signatures Potentially Explaining Features in Periodontitis Stage Severity.

Dentistry journal·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 29, 2025

Detection of Copy Number Alterations Using Single Cell Sequencing
09:45

Detection of Copy Number Alterations Using Single Cell Sequencing

Published on: February 17, 2017

11.9K

Benchmarking germline CNV calling tools from exome sequencing data.

Veronika Gordeeva1,2, Elena Sharova3, Konstantin Babalyan3

  • 1Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia. gordeeva.veronika@phystech.edu.

Scientific Reports
|July 14, 2021
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Whole-exome sequencing tools for detecting copy number variations (CNVs) vary significantly in performance. This study provides a unified comparison to help researchers select the best CNV calling algorithms for their specific genetic analysis needs.

More Related Videos

Detecting Somatic Genetic Alterations in Tumor Specimens by Exon Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing
11:02

Detecting Somatic Genetic Alterations in Tumor Specimens by Exon Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing

Published on: October 18, 2013

19.6K
Detection of Rare Mutations in CtDNA Using Next Generation Sequencing
11:11

Detection of Rare Mutations in CtDNA Using Next Generation Sequencing

Published on: August 24, 2017

17.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 29, 2025

Detection of Copy Number Alterations Using Single Cell Sequencing
09:45

Detection of Copy Number Alterations Using Single Cell Sequencing

Published on: February 17, 2017

11.9K
Detecting Somatic Genetic Alterations in Tumor Specimens by Exon Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing
11:02

Detecting Somatic Genetic Alterations in Tumor Specimens by Exon Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing

Published on: October 18, 2013

19.6K
Detection of Rare Mutations in CtDNA Using Next Generation Sequencing
11:11

Detection of Rare Mutations in CtDNA Using Next Generation Sequencing

Published on: August 24, 2017

17.1K

Area of Science:

  • Genomics
  • Bioinformatics
  • Computational Biology

Background:

  • Whole-exome sequencing (WES) offers a cost-effective alternative to microarrays for detecting copy number variations (CNVs).
  • Existing comparisons of CNV calling tools are limited by the absence of a gold standard dataset, leading to incomparable and often false-positive results.
  • Germline CNV detection tools require rigorous evaluation for accuracy and reliability in genetic studies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To comprehensively analyze and compare the performance of available germline CNV calling tools.
  • To establish a standardized benchmark using a reference sample set for evaluating tool concordance, efficiency, and detection capabilities.
  • To guide the selection of appropriate CNV calling algorithms for diverse applications in population genetics and medical genetics.

Main Methods:

  • Construction of an internal standard for the NA12878 sample, including 110,050 CNV or non-CNV exons, using a Bayesian estimation approach.
  • Evaluation of 16 germline CNV calling tools using the NA12878 standard and a reference set of 10 correlated exomes.
  • Assessment of tool performance based on length distribution, concordance rates, and detection efficiency.

Main Results:

  • Significant variability in detected CNV lengths and low concordance among the evaluated CNV calling tools.
  • Most tools demonstrated a focus on detecting short CNVs (1-7 exons) with false-positive rates exceeding 50%.
  • Tools like EXCAVATOR2, exomeCopy, and FishingCNV, designed for broader variation detection, exhibited low precision.

Conclusions:

  • No single CNV calling tool is universally superior; their performance is tool- and application-specific.
  • The comprehensive analysis provides a basis for selecting optimal algorithms or algorithm ensembles for specific genetic research goals.
  • Standardized evaluation is crucial for advancing the reliability and comparability of germline CNV detection in WES data.