Donor-specific assemblies enhance somatic structural variant detection in complex genomic regions
Mack, T. M.; Lin, J.; Ren, L.; Sohn, M.-H.; Minkina, A.; Kwon, Y.; Yoo, D.; Sui, Y.; Munson, K. M.; Hoekzema, K.; Mastrorosa, F. K.; Sorensen, M.; Ayllon, M.; Sun, K. A.; Koundiya, N.; Ou, J.; Noyes, M. D.; Sedeno-Cortes, A.; Leonardson, A.; Jacques, C. N.; Oliviera, C.; Frazar, C. D.; Zakarian, C.; Jensen, D. M.; Swanson, E. G.; Ryke, E.; Kolar, J. T.; Ranchalis, J.; Sutherlin, L.; Vollger, M. R.; Loy, K.; Pham, M. M.; Huang, M.-F.; Au, N. Y.; Nielsen, P. M.; McGee, S. R.; Neph, S.; Bohaczuk, S.; Shaffer, T.; Freeman, V.; Mao, Y.; Cohen Stillman, B.; Richardson, M.; Smith, J. D.; Weiss, J. M.
Show abstract
Structural variants (SVs) contribute substantially to genomic variation and disease, but detecting somatic SVs (sSVs) remains difficult due to reference bias, mosaicism, and enrichment in repetitive regions. Linear reference genomes, like GRCh38 and CHM13, do not fully capture individual genomic structure, which can obscure true somatic variation. Donor-specific assemblies (DSAs) generated from the same genome where sSVs are being assayed provide a personalized alternative, yet their performance for sSV detection has not been systematically assessed. As part of the Somatic Mosaicism across Human Tissues (SMaHT) Network, we benchmark a DSA for sSV discovery in the COLO829 melanoma cell line with a matched normal sample from the same individual. We compare sSV detection across GRCh38, CHM13, and the COLO829BL_DSA using three different sSV callers (Delly, Severus, and Sniffles2) and sequence data from multiple long-read platforms. The COLO829BL_DSA identifies 1.8-fold more manually validated sSVs than linear references, in regions both shared with GRCh38 and CHM13 and unique to the COLO829BL_DSA. Variants detected only with the COLO829BL_DSA are often found in satellite and other repeat-rich regions that are difficult to resolve using standard references. In addition, several COLO829BL_DSA-specific sSVs are located in genes, some of which are associated with cancer. Overall, these results underscore the utility of DSAs in improving sSV detection.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Minimizing detection bias of somatic mutations in a highly heterozygous oak genome 95%
- Low-pass sequencing plus imputation using avidity sequencing displays comparable imputation accuracy to sequencing by synthesis while reducing duplicates 93%
- A new high-quality genome assembly and annotation for the threatened Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Single-cell Genome-and-Transcriptome sequencing without upfront whole-genome amplification reveals cell state plasticity of melanoma subclones 94%
- Discovering single nucleotide variants and indels from bulk and single-cell ATAC-seq 94%
- DeNovoCNN: A deep learning approach to de novo variant calling in next generation sequencing data 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comprehensive Structural Variant Detection: From Mosaic to Population-Level 94%
- Towards a Comprehensive Variation Benchmark for Challenging Medically-Relevant Autosomal Genes 94%
- Alleloscope: Integrative single cell analysis of allele-specific copy number alterations and chromatin accessibility in cancer 93%
"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.