svclassify: a method to establish benchmark structural variant calls

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 17 - Trang 1-16 - 2016
Hemang Parikh1,2, Marghoob Mohiyuddin3, Hugo Y. K. Lam3, Hariharan Iyer4, Desu Chen5, Mark Pratt6, Gabor Bartha6, Noah Spies1,7, Wolfgang Losert5, Justin M. Zook1, Marc Salit1,8
1Genome-Scale Measurements Group, Material Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA
2Dakota Consulting Inc., Silver Spring, USA
3Bina Technologies, Roche Sequencing, Redwood City, USA
4Statistical Engineering Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA
5Institute for Research in Electronics and Applied Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
6Personalis, Inc, Menlo Park, USA
7Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
8Bioengineering Department, Stanford University, Stanford, USA

Tóm tắt

The human genome contains variants ranging in size from small single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to large structural variants (SVs). High-quality benchmark small variant calls for the pilot National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Reference Material (NA12878) have been developed by the Genome in a Bottle Consortium, but no similar high-quality benchmark SV calls exist for this genome. Since SV callers output highly discordant results, we developed methods to combine multiple forms of evidence from multiple sequencing technologies to classify candidate SVs into likely true or false positives. Our method (svclassify) calculates annotations from one or more aligned bam files from many high-throughput sequencing technologies, and then builds a one-class model using these annotations to classify candidate SVs as likely true or false positives. We first used pedigree analysis to develop a set of high-confidence breakpoint-resolved large deletions. We then used svclassify to cluster and classify these deletions as well as a set of high-confidence deletions from the 1000 Genomes Project and a set of breakpoint-resolved complex insertions from Spiral Genetics. We find that likely SVs cluster separately from likely non-SVs based on our annotations, and that the SVs cluster into different types of deletions. We then developed a supervised one-class classification method that uses a training set of random non-SV regions to determine whether candidate SVs have abnormal annotations different from most of the genome. To test this classification method, we use our pedigree-based breakpoint-resolved SVs, SVs validated by the 1000 Genomes Project, and assembly-based breakpoint-resolved insertions, along with semi-automated visualization using svviz. We find that candidate SVs with high scores from multiple technologies have high concordance with PCR validation and an orthogonal consensus method MetaSV (99.7 % concordant), and candidate SVs with low scores are questionable. We distribute a set of 2676 high-confidence deletions and 68 high-confidence insertions with high svclassify scores from these call sets for benchmarking SV callers. We expect these methods to be particularly useful for establishing high-confidence SV calls for benchmark samples that have been characterized by multiple technologies.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Lee C, Scherer SW. The clinical context of copy number variation in the human genome. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2010;12:e8. Alkan C, Coe BP, Eichler EE. Genome structural variation discovery and genotyping. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:363–76. Layer RM, Chiang C, Quinlan AR, Hall IM. LUMPY: a probabilistic framework for structural variant discovery. Genome Biol. 2014;15:R84. Wong K, Keane TM, Stalker J, Adams DJ. Enhanced structural variant and breakpoint detection using SVMerge by integration of multiple detection methods and local assembly. Genome Biol. 2010;11:R128. Mohiyuddin M, Mu JC, Li J, Bani Asadi N, Gerstein MB, Abyzov A, et al. MetaSV: an accurate and integrative structural-variant caller for next generation sequencing. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(16):2741–4. Zook JM, Chapman B, Wang J, Mittelman D, Hofmann O, Hide W, et al. Integrating human sequence data sets provides a resource of benchmark SNP and indel genotype calls. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:246–51. Khan SS, Madden MG. A survey of recent trends in one class classification. Lect Notes Comput Sc. 2010;6206:188–97. Yousef M, Najami N, Khalifav W. A comparison study between one-class and two-class machine learning for MicroRNA target detection. J Biomed Sci Eng. 2010;3:247–52. English AC, Salerno WJ, Hampton OA, Gonzaga-Jauregui C, Ambreth S, Ritter DI, et al. Assessing structural variation in a personal genome-towards a human reference diploid genome. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:286. Spies N, Zook JM, Salit M, Sidow A. svviz: a read viewer for validating structural variants. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(24):3994–6. Kong A, Frigge ML, Masson G, Besenbacher S, Sulem P, Magnusson G, et al. Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father’s age to disease risk. Nature. 2012;488:471–5. Lam HYK, Pan C, Clark MJ, Lacroute P, Chen R, Haraksingh R, et al. Detecting and annotating genetic variations using the HugeSeq pipeline. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(3):226–9. Genomes Project C, Abecasis GR, Altshuler D, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, et al. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. Nature. 2010;467:1061–73. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1754–60. Mills RE, Walter K, Stewart C, Handsaker RE, Chen K, Alkan C, et al. Mapping copy number variation by population-scale genome sequencing. Nature. 2011;470:59–65. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:2078–9. Quinlan AR, Hall IM. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:841–2. Burbidge JB, Magee L, Robb AL. Alternative transformations to handle extreme values of the dependent variable. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83(401):123–7. Deza MM, Deza E. Encyclopedia of distances. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. Ward Jr JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc. 1963;58(301):236–44. Cox TF, Cox MAA. Multidimensional scaling. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2000. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J. An introduction to support Vector Machines: and other kernel-based learning method. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2000. Schölkopf B, Williamson R, Smola A, Shawe-Taylor J, Platt J. Support vector method for novelty detection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000. p. 582–8. Tax DMJ, Duin RPW. Support vector data description. Mach Learn. 2004;54:45–66. Robinson JT, Thorvaldsdottir H, Winckler W, Guttman M, Lander ES, Getz G, et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:24–6. Ye K, Schulz MH, Long Q, Apweiler R, Ning Z. Pindel: a pattern growth approach to detect breakpoints of large deletions and medium sized insertions from paired-end short reads. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(21):2865–71. Abyzov A, Urban AE, Snyder M, Gerstein MB. CNVnator: an approach to discover, genotype, and characterize typical and atypical CNVs from family and population genome sequencing. Genome Res. 2011;21(6):974–84. Chen K, Wallis JW, McLellan MD, Larson DE, Kalicki JM, Pohl CS, et al. BreakDancer: an algorithm for high-resolution mapping of genomic structural variantion. Nat Methods. 2009;6(9):677–81. Lam HYK, Mu XJ, Stutz AM, Tanzer A, Cayting PD, Snyder M, et al. Nucleotide-resolution analysis of structural variants using BreakSeq and a breakpoint library. Nature Biotechnol. 2010;28(1):47–55. 30. Abyzov A, Li S, Kim DR, Mohiyuddin M, Stütz AM, Parrish NF, et al. Analysis of deletion breakpoints from 1,092 humans reveals details of mutation mechanisms. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7256.