2018
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-018-2428-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

TNER: a novel background error suppression method for mutation detection in circulating tumor DNA

Abstract: BackgroundUltra-deep next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) holds great promise as a tool for the early detection of cancer and for monitoring disease progression and therapeutic responses. However, the low abundance of ctDNA in the bloodstream coupled with technical errors introduced during library construction and sequencing complicates mutation detection.ResultsTo achieve high accuracy of variant calling via better distinguishing low-frequency ctDNA mutations from background errors, we … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To this end, cfDNA sequencing artifacts and stochastic sequencing errors need to be suppressed 25 . Combining existing knowledge 22, 23, 25 , our error suppression approach includes tagging DNA molecules with unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) and a combination of two comparative error suppression (CES) methods: (I) deriving and excluding error-prone genomic regions in a identically processed set of cfDNA samples from a healthy control cohort and (II) judging each base call based on its modelled error-rate in an identically processed healthy control cohort considering the given tri-nucleotide context 27 (see methods for details).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…To this end, cfDNA sequencing artifacts and stochastic sequencing errors need to be suppressed 25 . Combining existing knowledge 22, 23, 25 , our error suppression approach includes tagging DNA molecules with unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) and a combination of two comparative error suppression (CES) methods: (I) deriving and excluding error-prone genomic regions in a identically processed set of cfDNA samples from a healthy control cohort and (II) judging each base call based on its modelled error-rate in an identically processed healthy control cohort considering the given tri-nucleotide context 27 (see methods for details).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using customized scripts, all positions with a non-reference (hg19) allele frequency > 5%, likely representing germline single nucleotide polymorphisms, were set to a non-reference allele frequency of 0 in the reference cohort. Next, TNER 27 was used to compile a database of position-specific average background error rates for each position in the target region using the healthy donor controls as input. This database was used as input to TNER 27 to polish each cell-free DNA MPILEUP generated from post UMI-processing consensus reads aligned to hg19 by BWA mem 70 as described above with the polish strength parameter set to 0.05 (parameter: input.alpha = 0.05).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…3h). This result indicated that using cfDNA data from normal healthy individuals with low-level templates as the background [20,41] is not sufficient to cover all noises in samples with high-level templates under similar sequencing coverage. Thus, we combined controls with RSDs for the following analysis.…”
Section: Characteristics Of Mutant-family-level Noisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This caveat has motivated several approaches for error-suppression when sequencing cfDNA, which can enhance the sensitivity of variant detection (Newman et al, 2016;Deng et al, 2018). Another approach to go beyond the variant detection limit is to monitor previously identified mutations from the tumor rather than de novo detection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%