Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Madsen, M. B.

Publications and source records attributed to Madsen, M. B..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Recommendations for Bioinformatics in Clinical Practice

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is increasingly used in clinical diagnostics, largely driven by the success and robustness of Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS). Whereas updated guidelines exist for how to interpret and report on variants that are identified from NGS using bioinformatics pipelines, there is a need for standardised bioinformatics practices for diagnostics to ensure clinical consensus, accuracy, reproducibility and comparability of the results. This article presents consensus recommendations developed by 13 clinical bioinformatics units taking part in the Nordic Alliance for Clinical Genomics (NACG), by expert bioinformaticians working in clinical production. The recommendations are based on clinical practice and focus on analysis types, test and validation, standardisation and accreditation, as well as core competencies and technical management required for clinical bioinformatics operations. Key recommendations include adopting the hg38 genome build as the reference and a standard set of recommended analyses, including the use of multiple tools for structural variant (SV) calling and in-house data sets for filtering recurrent calls. Clinical bioinformatics production should operate under the ISO 15189 standard, utilising off-grid clinical-grade high-performance computing systems, standardised file formats, and strict code version control. Containerized software containers or environment management systems are needed to ensure reproducibility. Pipelines should be rigorously documented and tested for accuracy and reproducibility, minimally covering unit, integration, and end-to-end testing. Standard truth sets such as GIAB and SEQC2 for germline and somatic variant calling, respectively, should be supplemented by recall testing of previously validated clinical cases. Data integrity must be verified using file hashing, and sample identity should be checked via sample fingerprinting and genetically inferred identification markers such as sex and relatedness. Finally, clinical bioinformatics teams should encompass diverse skills, including software development, data management, quality assurance, and domain expertise in human genetics. These recommendations provide a consensus framework for standardising bioinformatics practices across clinical WGS applications and can serve as a practical guide to facilities that are new to large-scale sequencing-based diagnostics, or as a reference for those who already run high-volume clinical production using NGS.

bioinformatics↗

A comparison of tools for copy-number variation detection in germline whole exome and whole genome sequencing data

BackgroundCopy-number variations (CNVs) have important clinical implications for several diseases and cancers. The clinically relevant CNVs are hard to detect because CNVs are common structural variations that define large parts of the normal human genome. CNV calling from short-read sequencing data has the potential to leverage available cohort studies and allow full genomic profiling in the clinic without the need for additional data modalities. Questions regarding performance of CNV calling tools for clinical use and suitable sequencing protocols remain poorly addressed, mainly because of the lack of good reference data sets. MethodsWe reviewed 50 popular CNV calling tools and included 11 tools for benchmarking in a unique reference cohort encompassing 39 whole genome sequencing (WGS) samples paired with analysis by the current clinical standard --SNP-array based CNV calling. Additionally, for nine of these samples we performed whole exome sequencing (WES) performed, in order to address the effect of sequencing protocol on CNV calling. Furthermore, we included Gold Standard reference sample NA12878, and tested 12 samples with CNVs confirmed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). ResultsTool performance varied greatly in the number of called CNVs and bias for CNV lengths. Some tools had near-perfect recall of CNVs from arrays for some samples, but poor precision. Filtering output by CNV ranks from tools did not salvage precision. Several tools had better performance patterns for NA12878, and we hypothesize that this is the result of overfitting during the tool development. ConclusionsWe suggest combining tools with the best recall: GATK gCNV, Lumpy, DELLY, and cn.MOPS. These tools also capture different CNVs. Further improvements in precision requires additional development of tools, reference data sets, and annotation of CNVs, potentially assisted by the use of background panels for filtering of frequently called variants.

bioinformatics↗