Abstract:BACKGROUND:Copy Number Variations (CNVs) are usually inferred from Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) arrays by use of some software packages based on given algorithms. However, there is no clear understanding of the performance of these software packages; it is therefore difficult to select one or several software packages for CNV detection based on the SNP array platform.We selected four publicly available software packages designed for CNV calling from an Affymetrix SNP array, including Birdsuite, dChip, Genotyping Console (GTC) and PennCNV. The publicly available dataset generated by Array-based Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH), with a resolution of 24 million probes per sample, was considered to be the "gold standard". Compared with the CGH-based dataset, the success rate, average stability rate, sensitivity, consistence and reproducibility of these four software packages were assessed compared with the "gold standard". Specially, we also compared the efficiency of detecting CNVs simultaneously by two, three and all of the software packages with that by a single software package.RESULTS:Simply from the quantity of the detected CNVs, Birdsuite detected the most while GTC detected the least. We found that Birdsuite and dChip had obvious detecting bias. And GTC seemed to be inferior because of the least amount of CNVs it detected. Thereafter we investigated the detection consistency produced by one certain software package and the rest three software suits. We found that the consistency of dChip was the lowest while GTC was the highest. Compared with the CNVs detecting result of CGH, in the matching group, GTC called the most matching CNVs, PennCNV-Affy ranked second. In the non-overlapping group, GTC called the least CNVs. With regards to the reproducibility of CNV calling, larger CNVs were usually replicated better. PennCNV-Affy shows the best consistency while Birdsuite shows the poorest.CONCLUSION:We found that PennCNV outperformed the other three packages in the sensitivity and specificity of CNV calling. Obviously, each calling method had its own limitations and advantages for different data analysis. Therefore, the optimized calling methods might be identified using multiple algorithms to evaluate the concordance and discordance of SNP array-based CNV calling.

A Method to Correct Systematic Bias in Affymetrix SNP Arrays

The Biases of Copy Numbers from Affymetrix SNP Arrays and Their Corrections.

The analysis of biases of copy numbers from affymetrix snp arrays

A Study of Biases of DNA Copy Number Estimation Based on PICR Model

Hybridization modeling of oligonucleotide SNP arrays for accurate DNA copy number estimation.

Accuracy Of Cnv Detection From Gwas Data

Hybridization and Amplification Rate Correction for Affymetrix SNP Arrays

Adjustment of Systematic Microarray Data Biases

Improving Detection Of Copy-Number Variation By Simultaneous Bias Correction And Read-Depth Segmentation

Missing Call Bias in High-Throughput Genotyping

Bias in Estimates of Quantitative-Trait–Locus Effect in Genome Scans: Demonstration of the Phenomenon and a Method-of-Moments Procedure for Reducing Bias

A Computational Strategy to Adjust for Copy Number in Tumor Hi-C Data

An imputation approach for oligonucleotide microarrays

Estimation of Genotype Error Rate Using Samples with Pedigree Information--an Application on the GeneChip Mapping 10K Array.

A Remark on Copy Number Variation Detection Methods

A robust statistical method for Genome-wide association analysis of human copy number variation

A multiple testing correction method for genetic association studies using correlated single nucleotide polymorphisms

Copy Number Aberrations from Affymetrix SNP 6.0 Genotyping Data-How Accurate Are Commonly Used Prediction Approaches?

Evaluation of Copy Number Variation Detection for a SNP Array Platform

Adjustment method for microarray data generated using two-cycle RNA labeling protocol

Technical reproducibility of genotyping SNP arrays used in genome-wide association studies.