4.7 Article

Empirical design of a variant quality control pipeline for whole genome sequencing data using replicate discordance

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52614-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Mildred and Frank Feinberg Family Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging [R01 AG 618381, R01 AG 042188, R01 AG 046949, P01 AG 021654, K08AG054727]
  3. Einstein Nathan Shock Center [P30AG038072]
  4. Glenn Center for the Biology of Human Aging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The success of next-generation sequencing depends on the accuracy of variant calls. Few objective protocols exist for QC following variant calling from whole genome sequencing (WGS) data. After applying QC filtering based on Genome Analysis Tool Kit (GATK) best practices, we used genotype discordance of eight samples that were sequenced twice each to evaluate the proportion of potentially inaccurate variant calls. We designed a QC pipeline involving hard filters to improve replicate genotype concordance, which indicates improved accuracy of genotype calls. Our pipeline analyzes the efficacy of each filtering step. We initially applied this strategy to well-characterized variants from the ClinVar database, and subsequently to the full WGS dataset. The genome-wide biallelic pipeline removed 82.11% of discordant and 14.89% of concordant genotypes, and improved the concordance rate from 98.53% to 99.69%. The variant-level read depth filter most improved the genome-wide biallelic concordance rate. We also adapted this pipeline for triallelic sites, given the increasing proportion of multiallelic sites as sample sizes increase. For triallelic sites containing only SNVs, the concordance rate improved from 97.68% to 99.80%. Our QC pipeline removes many potentially false positive calls that pass in GATK, and may inform future WGS studies prior to variant effect analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available