Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • PKhongthon
    Junior Member
    • Apr 2015
    • 2

    #1

    The problem with sensitivity analysis of somatic variant caller

    Hello!

    I'm working on somatic variant identification from cancer samples. So, I try to simulate Illumina paired-end read with known variants by using VarSim (http://bioinform.github.io/varsim/), which this tools can simulate the human genome with both germline and somatic mutations (use ART tool as a simulator). In addition, I had simulated tumor reads by vary allele frequency in the range of 0.1 - 0.5.

    As this paper "Detecting somatic point mutations in cancer genome sequencing data: a comparison of mutation callers" (DOI: 10.1186/gm495) mentioned about the sensitivity of any somatic variant caller including MuTect, SomaticSniper, VarScan, Strelka, and JointSNVMix. I had followed the command of any tools that they provide in supplement to calling somatic variations. However, the sensitivity is quite low when compare with their reports. The maximum is around 0.9 at allele frequency equal to 0.5 (MuTect) while at allele frequency equal to 0.5 (MuTect) I got the sensitivity just 0.7 (my simulated reads are chr22).

    So, I have no idea that why the results are very different, even I use only chr22 but I think the results shouldn't be much different.

    Additional, I aligned the reads by using bwa-mem then mark duplicates with Picard-tool and realigned, recalibration with GATK

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • SEQadmin2
    Beyond CRISPR/Cas9: Understand, Choose, and Use the Right Genome Editing Tool
    by SEQadmin2



    CRISPR/Cas9 sparked the gene editing revolution for both research and therapeutics.1 But this system still showed severe issues that limited its applications. The most prominent were the heavy reliance on PAM sequences, delivery limitations, double-stranded breaks that prompt unintended edits and cell death, and editing inefficiency (both in targeting and in knock-in reliability).

    Despite this, “CRISPR helped turn genome editing from a specialized technique into
    ...
    Today, 11:01 AM
  • SEQadmin2
    Proteomic Platforms: How to Choose the Right Analytical Strategy to Improve Detection and Clinical Applications
    by SEQadmin2


    Proteomics platforms are evolving rapidly, with advances in mass spectrometry and affinity-based approaches expanding what researchers can detect and at what scale. As the field moves toward deeper proteome coverage and clinical applications, scientists face an increasingly complex landscape of tools. This article will explore how researchers are navigating these choices to find the right platform for their work.

    The systematic characterization of the human proteome has
    ...
    07-20-2026, 11:48 AM
  • SEQadmin2
    Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
    by SEQadmin2



    Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
    ...
    07-09-2026, 11:10 AM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 02:55 AM
0 responses
7 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-24-2026, 12:17 PM
0 responses
11 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-23-2026, 11:41 AM
0 responses
12 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-20-2026, 11:10 AM
0 responses
24 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...