File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  • Find it @ UNIST can give you direct access to the published full text of this article. (UNISTARs only)
Related Researcher

이세민

Lee, Semin
Computational Biology Lab.
Read More

Views & Downloads

Detailed Information

Cited time in webofscience Cited time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Full metadata record

DC Field Value Language
dc.citation.endPage 192 -
dc.citation.number 2 -
dc.citation.startPage 185 -
dc.citation.title BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS -
dc.citation.volume 17 -
dc.contributor.author Nam, Jae-Young -
dc.contributor.author Kim, Nayoung K. D. -
dc.contributor.author Kim, Sang Cheol -
dc.contributor.author Joung, Je-Gun -
dc.contributor.author Xi, Ruibin -
dc.contributor.author Lee, Semin -
dc.contributor.author Park, Peter J. -
dc.contributor.author Park, Woong-Yang -
dc.date.accessioned 2023-12-22T00:07:50Z -
dc.date.available 2023-12-22T00:07:50Z -
dc.date.created 2016-03-23 -
dc.date.issued 2016-03 -
dc.description.abstract Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has become a standard method for detecting genetic variants in human diseases. Although the primary use of WES data has been the identification of single nucleotide variations and indels, these data also offer a possibility of detecting copy number variations (CNVs) at high resolution. However, WES data have uneven read coverage along the genome owing to the target capture step, and the development of a robust WES-based CNV tool is challenging. Here, we evaluate six WES somatic CNV detection tools: ADTEx, CONTRA, Control-FREEC, EXCAVATOR, ExomeCNV and Varscan2. Using WES data from 50 kidney chromophobe, 50 bladder urothelial carcinoma, and 50 stomach adenocarcinoma patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas, we compared the CNV calls from the six tools with a reference CNV set that was identified by both single nucleotide polymorphism array 6.0 and whole-genome sequencing data. We found that these algorithms gave highly variable results: visual inspection reveals significant differences between the WES-based segmentation profiles and the reference profile, as well as among the WES-based profiles. Using a 50% overlap criterion, 13-77% of WES CNV calls were covered by CNVs from the reference set, up to 21% of the copy gains were called as losses or vice versa, and dramatic differences in CNV sizes and CNV numbers were observed. Overall, ADTEx and EXCAVATOR had the best performance with relatively high precision and sensitivity. We suggest that the current algorithms for somatic CNV detection from WES data are limited in their performance and that more robust algorithms are needed. -
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS, v.17, no.2, pp.185 - 192 -
dc.identifier.doi 10.1093/bib/bbv055 -
dc.identifier.issn 1467-5463 -
dc.identifier.uri https://scholarworks.unist.ac.kr/handle/201301/18870 -
dc.identifier.url http://bib.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/2/185.long -
dc.identifier.wosid 000372974300001 -
dc.language 영어 -
dc.publisher OXFORD UNIV PRESS -
dc.title Evaluation of somatic copy number estimation tools for whole-exome sequencing data -
dc.type Article -
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass scie -
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass scopus -

qrcode

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.