Benchmarking of duplex sequencing approaches to reveal somatic mutation landscapes
Zhang, Y.; Viswanadham, V.; Andreopoulos, M.; Glodzik, D.; Liu, R.; Luquette, L.; Jo, S.-Y.; Narayan, A.; Niu, M.; Anderson, L.; Brew, J.; Chao, H.; Cibulskis, C.; Dong, G.; Evani, U.; Feng, W.; Gronska-Peski, M.; Helland, A.; Hilal, N.; Jabara, N.; Jin, H.; Li, N.; Manam, M.; Mallett, S.; Runnels, A.; Scharlee, C.; Smith, C.; The SMaHT Duplex Sequencing Working Group, ; Shao, D.; Walsh, C.; Adalsteinsson, V.; Germer, S.; Gibbs, R.; Choudhury, S.; Doddapaneni, H.; Evrony, G.; Zong, C.; Coorens, T.
Show abstract
Detecting somatic mutations in normal tissues is challenging due to sequencing errors and the low allele fractions of post-zygotic variants. Duplex sequencing greatly reduces errors and can detect mutations at any allele fraction, but systematic, cross-platform comparisons are lacking. We present a comprehensive benchmarking of six duplex sequencing technologies used by the SMaHT Network: CODEC, CompDuplex-seq, HiDEF-seq, NanoSeq, ppmSeq, and VISTA-seq. We evaluated their performance using cord blood DNA, a tumor-normal cell line mixture, and homogenates from six human tissues. Each method shows distinct profiles in genomic footprint, sensitivity, and cost. Despite differences in library construction and sequencing platforms, estimates of mutation rates and mutational signatures are highly concordant. Integration with ultra-deep whole-genome sequencing shows that duplex approaches sensitively capture mutations and signatures beyond embryonic or clonally expanded variants. These results provide a foundation for selecting duplex methods and interpreting their data, enabling scalable single-molecule analyses of somatic mutation landscapes. Graphical Abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=101 SRC="FIGDIR/small/692823v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (46K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@123b221org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@83ba0aorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@2b0ab0org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1cae35e_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Cross-dataset pan-cancer detection: Correlating cell-free DNA fragment coverage with open chromatin sites across cell types 97%
- Detection of isoforms and genomic alterations by high-throughput full-length single-cell RNA sequencing in ovarian cancer 96%
- MQuad enables clonal substructure discovery using single cell mitochondrial variants 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.