BMC Genomics (Sep 2024)

Performance of somatic structural variant calling in lung cancer using Oxford Nanopore sequencing technology

  • Lingchen Liu,
  • Jia Zhang,
  • Scott Wood,
  • Felicity Newell,
  • Conrad Leonard,
  • Lambros T. Koufariotis,
  • Katia Nones,
  • Andrew J. Dalley,
  • Haarika Chittoory,
  • Farzad Bashirzadeh,
  • Jung Hwa Son,
  • Daniel Steinfort,
  • Jonathan P. Williamson,
  • Michael Bint,
  • Carl Pahoff,
  • Phan T. Nguyen,
  • Scott Twaddell,
  • David Arnold,
  • Christopher Grainge,
  • Peter T. Simpson,
  • David Fielding,
  • Nicola Waddell,
  • John V. Pearson

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-024-10792-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 25, no. 1
pp. 1 – 13

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and the primary cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Somatic mutations, including large structural variants, are important biomarkers in lung cancer for selecting targeted therapy. Genomic studies in lung cancer have been conducted using short-read sequencing. Emerging long-read sequencing technologies are a promising alternative to study somatic structural variants, however there is no current consensus on how to process data and call somatic events. In this study, we preformed whole genome sequencing of lung cancer and matched non-tumour samples using long and short read sequencing to comprehensively benchmark three sequence aligners and seven structural variant callers comprised of generic callers (SVIM, Sniffles2, DELLY in generic mode and cuteSV) and somatic callers (Severus, SAVANA, nanomonsv and DELLY in somatic modes). Results Different combinations of aligners and variant callers influenced somatic structural variant detection. The choice of caller had a significant influence on somatic structural variant detection in terms of variant type, size, sensitivity, and accuracy. The performance of each variant caller was assessed by comparing to somatic structural variants identified by short-read sequencing. When compared to somatic structural variants detected with short-read sequencing, more events were detected with long-read sequencing. The mean recall of somatic variant events identified by long-read sequencing was higher for the somatic callers (72%) than generic callers (53%). Among the somatic callers when using the minimap2 aligner, SAVANA and Severus achieved the highest recall at 79.5% and 79.25% respectively, followed by nanomonsv with a recall of 72.5%. Conclusion Long-read sequencing can identify somatic structural variants in clincal samples. The longer reads have the potential to improve our understanding of cancer development and inform personalized cancer treatment.

Keywords