A repo on datasets used in Sequencing benchmarked study, Nat Biotech, September 2021:
Takeaways from that study (more details at the bottom of page):
- read coverage and variant callers influenced both WGS and WES reproducibility
- WES performance was influenced by insert fragment size, genomic copy content, and the global imbalance score (GIV; G > T/C > A). The GIV score is DNA damage indicator and is computed based on the global imbalance between variants detected in R1 and R2 in PE sequencing.
Datasets from Toward best practice in cancer mutation detection with whole-genome and whole-exome sequencingNature Biotechnology volume 39, pages1141–1150 (2021)
- FASTQ files: manifest file (json) is available in the files directory. Sequencing files are available at SRA SRP162370 To map file names back to sample names and sample type , SraRunInfo file and SEQC2 file naming convention below are helpful.
The following files are available at NCBI FTP
- The call set for somatic mutations in HCC1395
- VCF files derived from individual WES and WGS runs,
- bam files for BWA-MEM alignments
- source codes
The study design used in the above-referenced paper aims to capture non-analytical and analytical factors affecting cancer mutation detection.
- Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS):
• Six sequencing centers performed WGS using standard TruSeq PCR-free libraries from 1,000 ng input DNA.
• Three platforms (HiSeq 4000, HiSeq X10, and NovaSeq S6000) were compared, revealing variations in read quantities and coverages among centers.
• Libraries prepared from fresh cells exhibited uniform insert size distribution and low adapter contamination.
- Whole-Exome Sequencing (WES):
• Six sequencing centers utilized three HiSeq models for WES, demonstrating variations in sequencing yield and coverage.
• WES libraries showed higher adapter contamination, G/C content, and variability in read mapping compared to WGS.
• Library preparation kits (TruSeq PCR-free, TruSeq-Nano, Nextera Flex) and DNA input amounts influenced the percentage of mapped reads.
• G > T/C > A mutation pair's GIV score in WES showed an inverse correlation with insert fragment size.
• Formaldehyde-induced DNA damage in FFPE samples was assessed using the G > T/C > A GIV score.
• Twelve repeats of WES and WGS were performed at six sequencing centers, using three mutation callers and three aligners.
• Both BWA and NovoAlign demonstrated a substantial pool of agreed-upon calls in WGS and WES runs, with differences observed in SNV calls.
• WGS with Bowtie2 tended to have fewer consistent SNV calls, indicating conservative mutation calling.
• Analysis of WGS and WES reproducibility revealed that callers and read coverage were major factors for both platforms.
• WES reproducibility was influenced by additional factors, including insert fragment size, GC content, and GIV scores.
• Intercenter variations for WES were larger than those for WGS, and the caller choice significantly affected reproducibility.
• Nextera Flex library preparation was suggested for low-input DNA quantity in comparison to TruSeq-Nano.
• FFPE processing reduced precision and recall rates for MuTect2 and Strelka2 in mutation calling.
• Bioinformatics tools like Trimmomatic and Bloom Filter Correction (BFC) were evaluated for error correction and trimming.
• BFC showed potential for severe DNA damage, while caution was advised when correcting FFPE artifacts using bioinformatics tools.
• The choice of caller and aligner, as well as their interaction, influenced mutation calling accuracy.
• Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) processing had varying impacts on different callers, highlighting the importance of understanding how components interact.
• Reproducibility of SNV calls was high for repeatable SNVs but dropped significantly for SNVs in the gray zone and nonrepeatable SNVs.
• Two major sources of discordant SNV calls were identified: stochastic effects due to low VAF and artifacts from library preparation.
• Callers, read coverage, and platforms were major factors influencing the reproducibility of mutation detection in WGS and WES.
• Tumor purity, coverage, and caller choice played significant roles in performance, with tumor purity being more influential than coverage.
• WGS outperformed WES in terms of precision across replicates, callers, and sequencing centers.
• Leveraging additional callers increased precision but at the cost of recall, emphasizing the importance of using sufficient library replicates during study design.