A comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark
The identification of structural variants (SVs) in genomic data represents an ongoing challenge because of difficulties in reliable SV calling leading to reduced sensitivity and specificity. We prepared high-quality DNA from 9 parent–child trios, who had previously undergone short-read whole-genome...
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Langue: | English |
| Publié: |
MDPI
2024
|
| _version_ | 1826317757273079808 |
|---|---|
| author | Pei, Y Tanguy, M Giess, A Dixit, A Wilson, LC Gibbons, RJ Twigg, SRF Elgar, G Wilkie, AOM |
| author_facet | Pei, Y Tanguy, M Giess, A Dixit, A Wilson, LC Gibbons, RJ Twigg, SRF Elgar, G Wilkie, AOM |
| author_sort | Pei, Y |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | The identification of structural variants (SVs) in genomic data represents an ongoing challenge because of difficulties in reliable SV calling leading to reduced sensitivity and specificity. We prepared high-quality DNA from 9 parent–child trios, who had previously undergone short-read whole-genome sequencing (Illumina platform) as part of the Genomics England 100,000 Genomes Project. We reanalysed the genomes using both Bionano optical genome mapping (OGM; 8 probands and one trio) and Nanopore long-read sequencing (Oxford Nanopore Technologies [ONT] platform; all samples). To establish a “truth” dataset, we asked whether rare proband SV calls (n = 234) made by the Bionano Access (version 1.6.1)/Solve software (version 3.6.1_11162020) could be verified by individual visualisation using the Integrative Genomics Viewer with either or both of the Illumina and ONT raw sequence. Of these, 222 calls were verified, indicating that Bionano OGM calls have high precision (positive predictive value 95%). We then asked what proportion of the 222 true Bionano SVs had been identified by SV callers in the other two datasets. In the Illumina dataset, sensitivity varied according to variant type, being high for deletions (115/134; 86%) but poor for insertions (13/58; 22%). In the ONT dataset, sensitivity was generally poor using the original Sniffles variant caller (48% overall) but improved substantially with use of Sniffles2 (36/40; 90% and 17/23; 74% for deletions and insertions, respectively). In summary, we show that the precision of OGM is very high. In addition, when applying the Sniffles2 caller, the sensitivity of SV calling using ONT long-read sequence data outperforms Illumina sequencing for most SV types. |
| first_indexed | 2025-03-11T16:58:58Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:56c0cf83-b5e7-4a8c-8acf-f646d10b6d34 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-03-11T16:58:58Z |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | MDPI |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:56c0cf83-b5e7-4a8c-8acf-f646d10b6d342025-03-05T15:41:14ZA comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmarkJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:56c0cf83-b5e7-4a8c-8acf-f646d10b6d34EnglishSymplectic ElementsMDPI2024Pei, YTanguy, MGiess, ADixit, AWilson, LCGibbons, RJTwigg, SRFElgar, GWilkie, AOMThe identification of structural variants (SVs) in genomic data represents an ongoing challenge because of difficulties in reliable SV calling leading to reduced sensitivity and specificity. We prepared high-quality DNA from 9 parent–child trios, who had previously undergone short-read whole-genome sequencing (Illumina platform) as part of the Genomics England 100,000 Genomes Project. We reanalysed the genomes using both Bionano optical genome mapping (OGM; 8 probands and one trio) and Nanopore long-read sequencing (Oxford Nanopore Technologies [ONT] platform; all samples). To establish a “truth” dataset, we asked whether rare proband SV calls (n = 234) made by the Bionano Access (version 1.6.1)/Solve software (version 3.6.1_11162020) could be verified by individual visualisation using the Integrative Genomics Viewer with either or both of the Illumina and ONT raw sequence. Of these, 222 calls were verified, indicating that Bionano OGM calls have high precision (positive predictive value 95%). We then asked what proportion of the 222 true Bionano SVs had been identified by SV callers in the other two datasets. In the Illumina dataset, sensitivity varied according to variant type, being high for deletions (115/134; 86%) but poor for insertions (13/58; 22%). In the ONT dataset, sensitivity was generally poor using the original Sniffles variant caller (48% overall) but improved substantially with use of Sniffles2 (36/40; 90% and 17/23; 74% for deletions and insertions, respectively). In summary, we show that the precision of OGM is very high. In addition, when applying the Sniffles2 caller, the sensitivity of SV calling using ONT long-read sequence data outperforms Illumina sequencing for most SV types. |
| spellingShingle | Pei, Y Tanguy, M Giess, A Dixit, A Wilson, LC Gibbons, RJ Twigg, SRF Elgar, G Wilkie, AOM A comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark |
| title | A comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark |
| title_full | A comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark |
| title_short | A comparison of structural variant calling from short-read and nanopore-based whole-genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark |
| title_sort | comparison of structural variant calling from short read and nanopore based whole genome sequencing using optical genome mapping as a benchmark |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT peiy acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT tanguym acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT giessa acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT dixita acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT wilsonlc acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT gibbonsrj acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT twiggsrf acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT elgarg acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT wilkieaom acomparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT peiy comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT tanguym comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT giessa comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT dixita comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT wilsonlc comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT gibbonsrj comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT twiggsrf comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT elgarg comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark AT wilkieaom comparisonofstructuralvariantcallingfromshortreadandnanoporebasedwholegenomesequencingusingopticalgenomemappingasabenchmark |