Benchmarking variant callers in next-generation and third-generation sequencing analysis. Issue 3 (23rd July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pei, Surui; Liu, Tao; Ren, Xue; Li, Weizhong; Chen, Chongjian; Xie, Zhi
• Is Part Of: Briefings in bioinformatics. Volume 22:Issue 3(2021)
• Publication Date: 2020-07-23
• Subjects: variant callers -- germline variant -- somatic variant; Genetics -- Data processing -- Periodicals; Molecular biology -- Data processing -- Periodicals; Genomes -- Data processing -- Periodicals; 572.80285
• DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbaa148
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1467-5463

Abstract

Abstract: DNA variants represent an important source of genetic variations among individuals. Next- generation sequencing (NGS) is the most popular technology for genome-wide variant calling. Third-generation sequencing (TGS) has also recently been used in genetic studies. Although many variant callers are available, no single caller can call both types of variants on NGS or TGS data with high sensitivity and specificity. In this study, we systematically evaluated 11 variant callers on 12 NGS and TGS datasets. For germline variant calling, we tested DNAseq and DNAscope modes from Sentieon, HaplotypeCaller mode from GATK and WGS mode from DeepVariant. All the four callers had comparable performance on NGS data and 30× coverage of WGS data was recommended. For germline variant calling on TGS data, we tested DNAseq mode from Sentieon, HaplotypeCaller mode from GATK and PACBIO mode from DeepVariant. All the three callers had similar performance in SNP calling, while DeepVariant outperformed the others in InDel calling. TGS detected more variants than NGS, particularly in complex and repetitive regions. For somatic variant calling on NGS, we tested TNscope and TNseq modes from Sentieon, MuTect2 mode from GATK, NeuSomatic, VarScan2, and Strelka2. TNscope and Mutect2 outperformed the other callers. A higher proportion of tumor sample purity (from 10 to 20%) significantly increased the recall value of calling. Finally, computational costs of the callers were compared and Sentieon required the least computational cost. These results suggest that careful selection of a tool and parameters is needed for accurate SNP or InDel calling under different scenarios.