A comprehensive multicenter comparison of whole genome sequencing pipelines using a uniform tumor-normal sample pair
Tyler S. Alioto,
Timothy A Beck,
Paul C. Boutros,
Adam P Butler,
Robert E. Denroche,
Nicholas J. Harding,
Lawrence E Heisler,
John D. McPherson,
Patrick S Tarpey,
Jon W Teague,
David A. Wheeler,
Takafumi N. Yamaguchi,
Stefan M. Pfister,
Peter J. Campbell,
Ivo G. Gut,
David T. W. Jones,
on behalf of the ICGC Verification and Validation Working Group
Posted 24 Dec 2014
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/013177
Posted 24 Dec 2014
As next-generation sequencing becomes a clinical tool, a full understanding of the variables affecting sequencing analysis output is required. Through the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), we compared sequencing pipelines at five independent centers (CNAG, DKFZ, OICR, RIKEN and WTSI) using a single tumor-blood DNA pair. Analyses by each center and with one standardized algorithm revealed significant discrepancies. Although most pipelines performed well for coding mutations, library preparation methods and sequencing coverage metrics clearly influenced downstream results. PCR-free methods showed reduced GC-bias and more even coverage. Increasing sequencing depth to ~100x (two- to three-fold higher than current standards) showed a benefit, as long as the tumor:control coverage ratio remained balanced. To become part of routine clinical care, high-throughput sequencing must be globally compatible and comparable. This benchmarking exercise has highlighted several fundamental parameters to consider in this regard, which will allow for better optimization and planning of both basic and translational studies.
- Downloaded 2,061 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 3,255 out of 84,588
- In genomics: 609 out of 5,461
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 61,938 out of 84,588
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 69,171 out of 84,588
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!