2019
DOI: 10.1101/840751
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of somatic structural variants from short-read next-generation sequencing data

Abstract: AbstractSomatic structural variants (SVs) play a significant role in cancer development and evolution, but are notoriously more difficult to detect than small variants from short-read next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. This is due to a combination of challenges attributed to the purity of tumour samples, tumour heterogeneity, limitations of short-read information from NGS, and sequence alignment ambiguities. In spite of active development of SV detection tools (callers) ove… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A possible explanation for this observation may be that a higher sequencing coverage can lead to an increased number of spuriously aligned reads (Kosugi et al, 2019). These reads can lead to an increased rate of false positive SV detection (Gong et al, 2021). Our result suggests that for homozygous genomes, Illumina short-read sequencing coverage of 25x is sufficient to detect SV with a high precision and sensitivity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A possible explanation for this observation may be that a higher sequencing coverage can lead to an increased number of spuriously aligned reads (Kosugi et al, 2019). These reads can lead to an increased rate of false positive SV detection (Gong et al, 2021). Our result suggests that for homozygous genomes, Illumina short-read sequencing coverage of 25x is sufficient to detect SV with a high precision and sensitivity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We excluded the so-called discordant and splitter reads and the reads with mapping quality below 30. Genotype calling was performed using FreeBayes 1.3.1 ( Garrison and Marth 2012 ) set with the “–use-best-n-alleles 4” option, and the same coverage threshold as for LR data. SNPs with quality scores below 50 and out of these coverage thresholds were excluded.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the second, the genomic sequences for each represented specimen were separately compared against the Hi‐C reference genome for structural variants with quality scores of >50% by manta v5 (Chen et al, 2016). MANTA was adopted for these comparisons on the basis of its high performance in recent tests of different structural variant callers (Gong et al, 2021; Kosugi et al, 2019). Unlike the SNP calls that were made with the double‐filtered mapped reads, these MANTA comparisons relied on the filtered sequences of each individual, because they also included those with (e.g.)…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%