2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0278-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Standard operating procedure for somatic variant refinement of sequencing data with paired tumor and normal samples

Abstract: Purpose Following automated variant calling, manual review of aligned read sequences is required to identify a high-quality list of somatic variants. Despite widespread use in analyzing sequence data, methods to standardize manual review have not been described, resulting in high inter- and intralab variability. Methods This manual review standard operating procedure (SOP) consists of methods to annotate variants with four different calls and 19 tags. The calls indicate… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
63
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(30 reference statements)
0
63
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reads in these regions tend to have lower mapping quality due to multiple alignments. Multiple mismatches (MM) [52] are another feature to avoid this effect. For the polishing step, unlike iDES, we found the most best-fitted distribution of stereotypical noise through large samples.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reads in these regions tend to have lower mapping quality due to multiple alignments. Multiple mismatches (MM) [52] are another feature to avoid this effect. For the polishing step, unlike iDES, we found the most best-fitted distribution of stereotypical noise through large samples.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The improved calibration of BATCAVE posterior probabilities compared to MuTect provides several advantages. In practice, called variants are often manually reviewed to further reduce false positives [53]. Improved calibration enables users to focus review on the most questionable variants.…”
Section: Tests Using Real Tumor Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For small deletions/indels we applied the same criteria with more stringent values for minimum VAF=0.01, minimum coverage=200, minimum number of supporting reads=6, signal to noise ratio=25, number of duplexes=2. We also filtered out recurrent variants that fall into high discrepancy genomic regions (HDR) as described in Bernell et al 22 and blacklisted these sites in further analyses.…”
Section: Bioinformatics Pipeline For Ultra-sensitive Detection Of Snvmentioning
confidence: 99%