4.7 Review

Critical assessment of bioinformatics methods for the characterization of pathological repeat expansions with single-molecule sequencing data

期刊

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 1971-1986

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbz099

关键词

trinucleotide repeat disorders; Oxford Nanopore Technologies; Pacific Bioscience SMRT sequencing; long-read sequencing; single-molecule sequencing

资金

  1. Italian Ministero dell' Istruzione, Universita e Ricerca: PRIN 2017, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche: Flagship Projects Epigen and Interomics
  2. H2020 Project ELIXIR-EXCELERATE
  3. Elixir-IIB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A number of studies have reported the successful application of single-molecule sequencing technologies to the determination of the size and sequence of pathological expanded microsatellite repeats over the last 5 years. However, different custom bioinformatics pipelines were employed in each study, preventing meaningful comparisons and somewhat limiting the reproducibility of the results. In this review, we provide a brief summary of state-of-the-art methods for the characterization of expanded repeats alleles, along with a detailed comparison of bioinformatics tools for the determination of repeat length and sequence, using both real and simulated data. Our reanalysis of publicly available human genome sequencing data suggests a modest, but statistically significant, increase of the error rate of single-molecule sequencing technologies at genomic regions containing short tandem repeats. However, we observe that all the methods herein tested, irrespective of the strategy used for the analysis of the data (either based on the alignment or assembly of the reads), show high levels of sensitivity in both the detection of expanded tandem repeats and the estimation of the expansion size, suggesting that approaches based on single-molecule sequencing technologies are highly effective for the detection and quantification of tandem repeat expansions and contractions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据