Benchmarking variant callers in next-generation and third-generation sequencing analysis

被引:49
|
作者
Pei, Surui [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Tao [2 ]
Ren, Xue [2 ]
Li, Weizhong [3 ]
Chen, Chongjian [2 ]
Xie, Zhi [4 ]
机构
[1] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Zhongshan Ophthalm Ctr, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Annoroad Gene Technol Beijing Co Ltd, Beijing 100176, Peoples R China
[3] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Zhongshan Sch Med, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
[4] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Zhongshan Ophthalm Ctr, Bioinformat, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
variant callers; germline variant; somatic variant;
D O I
10.1093/bib/bbaa148
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
DNA variants represent an important source of genetic variations among individuals. Next- generation sequencing (NGS) is the most popular technology for genome-wide variant calling. Third-generation sequencing (TGS) has also recently been used in genetic studies. Although many variant callers are available, no single caller can call both types of variants on NGS or TGS data with high sensitivity and specificity. In this study, we systematically evaluated 11 variant callers on 12 NGS and TGS datasets. For germline variant calling, we tested DNAseq and DNAscope modes from Sentieon, HaplotypeCaller mode from GATK and WGS mode from DeepVariant. All the four callers had comparable performance on NGS data and 30x coverage of WGS data was recommended. For germline variant calling on TGS data, we tested DNAseq mode from Sentieon, HaplotypeCaller mode from GATK and PACBIO mode from DeepVariant. All the three callers had similar performance in SNP calling, while DeepVariant outperformed the others in InDel calling. TGS detected more variants than NGS, particularly in complex and repetitive regions. For somatic variant calling on NGS, we tested TNscope and TNseq modes from Sentieon, MuTect2 mode from GATK, NeuSomatic, VarScan2, and Strelka2. TNscope and Mutect2 outperformed the other callers. A higher proportion of tumor sample purity (from 10 to 20%) significantly increased the recall value of calling. Finally, computational costs of the callers were compared and Sentieon required the least computational cost. These results suggest that careful selection of a tool and parameters is needed for accurate SNP or InDel calling under different scenarios.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Variant Callers for Next-Generation Sequencing Data: A Comparison Study
    Liu, Xiangtao
    Han, Shizhong
    Wang, Zuoheng
    Gelernter, Joel
    Yang, Bao-Zhu
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (09):
  • [2] Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) and Third-Generation Sequencing (TGS) for the Diagnosis of Thalassemia
    Hassan, Syahzuwan
    Bahar, Rosnah
    Johan, Muhammad Farid
    Mohamed Hashim, Ezzeddin Kamil
    Abdullah, Wan Zaidah
    Esa, Ezalia
    Abdul Hamid, Faidatul Syazlin
    Zulkafli, Zefarina
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (03)
  • [3] Back-to-Back Comparison of Third-Generation Sequencing and Next-Generation Sequencing in Carrier of Thalassemia
    Huang, Renliang
    Liu, Yinyin
    Xu, Jing
    Lin, Dan
    Mao, Aiping
    Yang, Liuqing
    Zhong, Gaobu
    Wang, Huoniao
    Xu, Ruofan
    Chen, Yiwei
    Zhou, Qiaomiao
    ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2024, 148 (07) : 797 - 804
  • [4] Evaluation of haplotype callers for next-generation sequencing of viruses
    Eliseev, Anton
    Gibson, Keylie M.
    Avdeyev, Pavel
    Novik, Dmitry
    Bendall, Matthew L.
    Perez-Losada, Marcos
    Alexeev, Nikita
    Crandall, Keith A.
    INFECTION GENETICS AND EVOLUTION, 2020, 82
  • [5] Benchmarking second and third-generation sequencing platforms for microbial metagenomics
    Victoria Meslier
    Benoit Quinquis
    Kévin Da Silva
    Florian Plaza Oñate
    Nicolas Pons
    Hugo Roume
    Mircea Podar
    Mathieu Almeida
    Scientific Data, 9
  • [6] Benchmarking second and third-generation sequencing platforms for microbial metagenomics
    Meslier, Victoria
    Quinquis, Benoit
    Da Silva, Kevin
    Plaza Onate, Florian
    Pons, Nicolas
    Roume, Hugo
    Podar, Mircea
    Almeida, Mathieu
    SCIENTIFIC DATA, 2022, 9 (01)
  • [7] Next-generation sequencing of the next generation
    Darren J. Burgess
    Nature Reviews Genetics, 2011, 12 : 78 - 79
  • [8] Cell-Free DNA Next-Generation Sequencing Prediction of Response and Resistance to Third-Generation EGFR Inhibitor
    Helman, Elena
    Minh Nguyen
    Karlovich, Chris A.
    Despain, Darrin
    Choquette, A. Karin
    Spira, Alexander, I
    Yu, Helena A.
    Camidge, D. Ross
    Harding, Thomas C.
    Lanman, Richard B.
    Simmons, Andrew D.
    CLINICAL LUNG CANCER, 2018, 19 (06) : 518 - +
  • [9] Evaluation of Sample Preservation Approaches for Better Insect Microbiome Research According to Next-Generation and Third-Generation Sequencing
    Zi-Wen Yang
    Yu Men
    Jing Zhang
    Zhi-Hui Liu
    Jiu-Yang Luo
    Yan-Hui Wang
    Wen-Jun Li
    Qiang Xie
    Microbial Ecology, 2021, 82 : 971 - 980
  • [10] Evaluation of Sample Preservation Approaches for Better Insect Microbiome Research According to Next-Generation and Third-Generation Sequencing
    Yang, Zi-Wen
    Men, Yu
    Zhang, Jing
    Liu, Zhi-Hui
    Luo, Jiu-Yang
    Wang, Yan-Hui
    Li, Wen-Jun
    Xie, Qiang
    MICROBIAL ECOLOGY, 2021, 82 (04) : 971 - 980