Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Sequencing quality has improved over the last decade for long-reads, allowing for more accurate detection of somatic low-frequency variants. In this study, we used mixtures of mitochondrial samples with different haplogroups (i.e., a specific set of mitochondrial variants) to investigate the applicability of nanopore sequencing for low-frequency single nucleotide variant detection. Methods: We investigated the impact of base-calling, alignment/mapping, quality control steps, and variant calling by comparing the results to a previously derived short-read gold standard generated on the Illumina NextSeq. For nanopore sequencing, six mixtures of four different haplotypes were prepared, allowing us to reliably check for expected variants at the predefined 5%, 2%, and 1% mixture levels. We used two different versions of Guppy for base-calling, two aligners (i.e., Minimap2 and Ngmlr), and three variant callers (i.e., Mutserve2, Freebayes, and Nanopanel2) to compare low-frequency variants. We used F 1 score measurements to assess the performance of variant calling. Results: We observed a mean read length of 11 kb and a mean overall read quality of 15. Ngmlr showed not only higher F 1 scores but also higher allele frequencies (AF) of false-positive calls across the mixtures (mean F 1 score = 0.83; false-positive allele frequencies < 0.17) compared to Minimap2 (mean F 1 score = 0.82; false-positive AF < 0.06). Mutserve2 had the highest F 1 scores (5% level: F 1 score >0.99, 2% level: F 1 score >0.54, and 1% level: F 1 score >0.70) across all callers and mixture levels. Conclusion: We here present the benchmarking for low-frequency variant calling with nanopore sequencing by identifying current limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lüth et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: