4.8 Article

Sensitive alignment using paralogous sequence variants improves long-read mapping and variant calling in segmental duplications

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkaa829

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [R01HG010149]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01HG10759]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ability to characterize repetitive regions of the human genome is limited by the read lengths of short-read sequencing technologies. Although long-read sequencing technologies such as Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) and Oxford Nanopore Technologies can potentially overcome this limitation, long segmental duplications with high sequence identity pose challenges for long-read mapping. We describe a probabilistic method, DuploMap, designed to improve the accuracy of long-read mapping in segmental duplications. It analyzes reads mapped to segmental duplications using existing long-read aligners and leverages paralogous sequence variants (PSVs)-sequence differences between paralogous sequences-to distinguish between multiple alignment locations. On simulated datasets, DuploMap increased the percentage of correctly mapped reads with high confidence for multiple long-read aligners including Minimap2 (74.3-90.6%) and BLASR (82.9-90.7%) while maintaining high precision. Across multiple whole-genome long-read datasets, DuploMap aligned an additional 8-21% of the reads in segmental duplications with high confidence relative to Minimap2. Using DuploMap-aligned PacBio circular consensus sequencing reads, an additional 8.9 Mb of DNA sequence was mappable, variant calling achieved a higher F-1 score and 14 713 additional variants supported by linked-read data were identified. Finally, we demonstrate that a significant fraction of PSVs in segmental duplications overlaps with variants and adversely impacts short-read variant calling.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available