Search

In studies of families with rare disease, it is common to screen for de novo mutations, as well as recessive or dominant variants that explain the phenotype. However, the filtering strategies and software used to prioritize high-confidence variants vary from study to study. In an effort to establish recommendations for rare disease research, we explore effective guidelines for variant (SNP and INDEL) filtering and report the expected number of candidates for de novo dominant, recessive, and autosomal dominant modes of inheritance. We derived these guidelines using two large family-based cohorts that underwent whole-genome sequencing, as well as two family cohorts with whole-exome sequencing. The filters are applied to common attributes, including genotype-quality, sequencing depth, allele balance, and population allele frequency. The resulting guidelines yield ~10 candidate SNP and INDEL variants per exome, and 18 per genome for recessive and de novo dominant modes of inheritance, with substantially more candidates for autosomal dominant inheritance. For family-based, whole-genome sequencing studies, this number includes an average of three de novo, ten compound heterozygous, one autosomal recessive, four X-linked variants, and roughly 100 candidate variants following autosomal dominant inheritance. The slivar software we developed to establish and rapidly apply these filters to VCF files is available at https://github.com/brentp/slivar under an MIT license, and includes documentation and recommendations for best practices for rare disease analysis.

Rapid identification of clinically significant variants is key to the successful application of next generation sequencing technologies in clinical practice. The Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance (MGHA) variant prioritization framework employs a gene prioritization index based on clinician-generated a priori gene lists, and a variant prioritization index (VPI) based on rarity, conservation and protein effect. We used data from 80 patients who underwent singleton whole exome sequencing (WES) to test the ability of the framework to rank causative variants highly, and compared it against the performance of other gene and variant prioritization tools. Causative variants were identified in 59 of the patients. Using the MGHA prioritization framework the average rank of the causative variant was 2.24, with 76% ranked as the top priority variant, and 90% ranked within the top five. Using clinician-generated gene lists resulted in ranking causative variants an average of 8.2 positions higher than prioritization based on variant properties alone. This clinically driven prioritization approach significantly outperformed purely computational tools, placing a greater proportion of causative variants top or in the top 5 (permutation P-value=0.001). Clinicians included 40 of the 49 WES diagnoses in their a priori list of differential diagnoses (81%). The lists generated by PhenoTips and Phenomizer contained 14 (29%) and 18 (37%) of these diagnoses respectively. These results highlight the benefits of clinically led variant prioritization in increasing the efficiency of singleton WES data analysis and have important implications for developing models for the funding and delivery of genomic services.

Background Bioinformatics software tools are often created ad hoc, frequently by people without extensive training in software development. In particular, for beginners, the barrier to entry in bioinformatics software development is high, especially if they want to adopt good programming practices. Even experienced developers do not always follow best practices. This results in the proliferation of poorer-quality bioinformatics software, leading to limited scalability and inefficient use of resources; lack of reproducibility, usability, adaptability, and interoperability; and erroneous or inaccurate results. Findings We have developed Bionitio, a tool that automates the process of starting new bioinformatics software projects following recommended best practices. With a single command, the user can create a new well-structured project in 1 of 12 programming languages. The resulting software is functional, carrying out a prototypical bioinformatics task, and thus serves as both a working example and a template for building new tools. Key features include command-line argument parsing, error handling, progress logging, defined exit status values, a test suite, a version number, standardized building and packaging, user documentation, code documentation, a standard open source software license, software revision control, and containerization. Conclusions Bionitio serves as a learning aid for beginner-to-intermediate bioinformatics programmers and provides an excellent starting point for new projects. This helps developers adopt good programming practices from the beginning of a project and encourages high-quality tools to be developed more rapidly. This also benefits users because tools are more easily installed and consistent in their usage. Bionitio is released as open source software under the MIT License and is available at https://github.com/bionitio-team/bionitio.

In the clinical setting, exome sequencing has become standard-of-care in diagnosing rare genetic disorders, however many patients remain unsolved. Trio sequencing has been demonstrated to produce a higher diagnostic yield than singleton (proband-only) sequencing. Parental sequencing is especially useful when a disease is suspected to be caused by a de novo variant in the proband, because parental data provide a strong filter for the majority of variants that are shared by the proband and their parents. However the additional cost of sequencing the parents makes the trio strategy uneconomical for many clinical situations. With two thirds of the sequencing budget being spent on parents, these are funds that could be used to sequence more probands. For this reason many clinics are reluctant to sequence parents.Here we propose a pooled-parent strategy for exome sequencing of individuals with likely de novo disease. In this strategy, DNA from all the parents of a cohort of unrelated probands is pooled together into a single exome capture and sequencing run. Variants called in the proband can then be filtered if they are also found in the parent pool, resulting in a shorter list of prioritised variants. To evaluate the pooled-parent strategy we performed a series of simulations by combining reads from individual exomes to imitate sample pooling. We assessed the recall and false positive rate and investigated the trade-off between pool size and recall rate. We compared the performance of GATK HaplotypeCaller individual and joint calling, and FreeBayes to genotype pooled samples. Finally, we applied a pooled-parent strategy to a set of real unsolved cases and showed that the parent pool is a powerful filter that is complementary to other commonly used variant filters such as population variant frequencies.

Short tandem repeat (STR) expansions have been identified as the causal DNA mutation in dozens of Mendelian diseases. Historically, pathogenic STR expansions could only be detected by single locus techniques, such as PCR and electrophoresis. The ability to use short read sequencing data to screen for STR expansions has the potential to reduce both the time and cost to reaching diagnosis and enable the discovery of new causal STR loci. Most existing tools detect STR variation within the read length, and so are unable to detect the majority of pathogenic expansions. Those tools that can detect large expansions are limited to a set of known disease loci and as yet no new disease causing STR expansions have been identified with high-throughput sequencing technologies.Here we address this by presenting STRetch, a new genome-wide method to detect STR expansions at all loci across the human genome. We demonstrate the use of STRetch for detecting pathogenic STR expansions in short-read whole genome sequencing data with a very low false discovery rate. We further demonstrate the application of STRetch to solve cases of patients with undiagnosed disease and apply STRetch to the analysis of 97 whole genomes to reveal variation at STR loci. STRetch assesses expansions at all STR loci in the genome and allows screening for novel disease-causing STRs.STRetch is open source software, available fromgithub.com/Oshlack/STRetch.

The benefits of implementing high throughput sequencing in the clinic are quickly becoming apparent. However, few freely available bioinformatics pipelines have been built from the ground up with clinical genomics in mind. Here we present Cpipe, a pipeline designed specifically for clinical genetic disease diagnostics. Cpipe was developed by the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, an Australian initiative to promote common approaches to genomics across healthcare institutions. As such, Cpipe has been designed to provide fast, effective and reproducible analysis, while also being highly flexible and customisable to meet the individual needs of diverse clinical settings. Cpipe is being shared with the clinical sequencing community as an open source project and is available at http://cpipeline.org. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0191-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rapid molecular typing of bacterial pathogens is critical for public health epidemiology, surveillance and infection control, yet routine use of whole genome sequencing (WGS) for these purposes poses significant challenges. Here we present SRST2, a read mapping-based tool for fast and accurate detection of genes, alleles and multi-locus sequence types (MLST) from WGS data. Using >900 genomes from common pathogens, we show SRST2 is highly accurate and outperforms assembly-based methods in terms of both gene detection and allele assignment. We include validation of SRST2 within a public health laboratory, and demonstrate its use for microbial genome surveillance in the hospital setting. In the face of rising threats of antimicrobial resistance and emerging virulence among bacterial pathogens, SRST2 represents a powerful tool for rapidly extracting clinically useful information from raw WGS data. Source code is available from http://katholt.github.io/srst2/. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-014-0090-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

As science becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, we are expected to acquire both breadth of knowledge and depth of expertise. In bioinformatics, this is especially true. Keeping up to date with major techniques across multiple specialisations can be daunting, but you need not face it alone. A journal club is an excellent way to take in the scientific literature, keep up with developments in your field, and hone your communication and analytical skills. In general, a journal club is a group of people who meet regularly to discuss one or more scientific papers. The structure of such a club can vary. In the more traditional format, an individual studies a paper and then presents it to the group, usually in the form of PowerPoint slides, with time for questions. In some institutions, the journal club is for students only, designed to fulfill the requirements of a course or postgraduate program; attendance is obligatory, the scope of the literature is narrow, and the format is prescribed. The preparation of slides and a lecture may be required. Other kinds of journal clubs are just lab meetings in disguise, with the usual lab head and group members in attendance and one member nominated to present the paper. A formal style often fits well within an established academic structure—but what if your discipline is emerging? Consider the field of bioinformatics. Expertise may be spread across departments and institutions, and there may not be an obvious place or critical mass in any one lab for a traditional journal club. Research students, “pet bioinformaticians,” [1] and those interested in bioinformatics from adjoining fields all need a place to gather. We are pleased to offer an alternative structure to address this situation—an informal journal club, designed to bring together a diversity of backgrounds and career stages to discuss bioinformatics while building a network of like-minded peers. Additional benefits of such a journal club may include friendship and breakfast (see Rule 2)! We thoroughly recommend it to anyone who asks (as well as those who don’t). While this advice is drawn from our experiences in the Parkville Bioinformatics Journal Club, it is applicable to developing informal journal clubs of all disciplines. The advice contained in these rules will also help those who want to spice up their existing formal format. So don’t be a “lonely bioinformatician”[1], create a journal club! Follow these Ten Simple Rules to find out how.