↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the reproducibility of exome copy number variations predictions

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Assessing the reproducibility of exome copy number variations predictions
Published in
Genome Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0336-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celine S. Hong, Larry N. Singh, James C. Mullikin, Leslie G. Biesecker

Abstract

Reproducibility is receiving increased attention across many domains of science and genomics is no exception. Efforts to identify copy number variations (CNVs) from exome sequence (ES) data have been increasing. Many algorithms have been published to discover CNVs from exomes and a major challenge is the reproducibility in other datasets. Here we test exome CNV calling reproducibility under three conditions: data generated by different sequencing centers; varying sample sizes; and varying capture methodology. Four CNV tools were tested: eXome Hidden Markov Model (XHMM), Copy Number Inference From Exome Reads (CoNIFER), EXCAVATOR, and Copy Number Analysis for Targeted Resequencing (CONTRA). To examine the reproducibility, we ran the callers on four datasets, varying sample sizes of N = 10, 30, 75, 100, 300, and data with different capture methodology. We examined the false negative (FN) calls and false positive (FP) calls for potential limitations of the CNV callers. The positive predictive value (PPV) was measured by checking the CNV call concordance against single nucleotide polymorphism array. Using independently generated datasets, we examined the PPV for each dataset and observed wide range of PPVs. The PPV values were highly data dependent (p <0.001). For the sample sizes and capture method analyses, we tested the callers in triplicates. Both analyses resulted in wide ranges of PPVs, even for the same test. Interestingly, negative correlations between the PPV and the sample sizes were observed for CoNIFER (ρ = -0.80). Further examination of FN calls showed that 44 % of these were missed by all callers and were attributed to the CNV size (46 % spanned ≤3 exons). Overlap of the FP calls showed that FPs were unique to each caller, indicative of algorithm dependency. Our results demonstrate that further improvements in CNV callers are necessary to improve reproducibility and to include wider spectrum of CNVs (including the small CNVs). These CNV callers should be evaluated on multiple independent, heterogeneously generated datasets of varying size to increase robustness and utility. These approaches to the evaluation of exome CNV are essential to support wide utility and applicability of CNV discovery in exome studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
China 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 78 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 33%
Computer Science 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 9 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,763,894
of 25,040,629 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#394
of 1,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,558
of 373,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,040,629 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.