CNV-ROC: A cost effective, computer-aided analytical performance evaluator of chromosomal microarrays

Chromosomal microarrays (CMAs) are routinely used in both research and clinical laboratories; yet, little attention has been given to the estimation of genome-wide true and false negatives during the assessment of these assays and how such information could be used to calibrate various algorithmic metrics to improve performance. Low-throughput, locus-specific methods such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), quantitative PCR (qPCR), or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) preclude rigorous calibration of various metrics used by copy number variant (CNV) detection algorithms. To aid this task, we have established a comparative methodology, CNV-ROC, which is capable of performing a high throughput, low cost, analysis of CMAs that takes into consideration genome-wide true and false negatives. CNV-ROC uses a higher resolution microarray to confirm calls from a lower resolution microarray and provides for a true measure of genome-wide performance metrics at the resolution offered by microarray testing. CNV-ROC also provides for a very precise comparison of CNV calls between two microarray platforms without the need to establish an arbitrary degree of overlap. Comparison of CNVs across microarrays is done on a per-probe basis and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis is used to calibrate algorithmic metrics, such as log2 ratio threshold, to enhance CNV calling performance. CNV-ROC addresses a critical and consistently overlooked aspect of analytical assessments of genome-wide techniques like CMAs which is the measurement and use of genome-wide true and false negative data for the calculation of performance metrics and comparison of CNV profiles between different microarray experiments.

[1]  Sharyn A. Lincoln,et al.  Clinical Genetic Testing for Patients With Autism Spectrum Disorders , 2010, Pediatrics.

[2]  S. South,et al.  American College of Medical Genetics recommendations for the design and performance expectations for clinical genomic copy number microarrays intended for use in the postnatal setting for detection of constitutional abnormalities , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[3]  L. Hudgins,et al.  Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  Tomas W. Fitzgerald,et al.  Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome , 2010, Nature.

[5]  Christa Lese Martin,et al.  Microarray analysis for constitutional cytogenetic abnormalities , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  Nancy J. Cox,et al.  A Study of CNVs As Trait-Associated Polymorphisms and As Expression Quantitative Trait Loci , 2011, PLoS genetics.

[7]  R. Newcombe Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Ryan Mills,et al.  Comprehensive assessment of array-based platforms and calling algorithms for detection of copy number variants , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  Yiping Shen,et al.  Microarray-based genomic DNA profiling technologies in clinical molecular diagnostics. , 2009, Clinical chemistry.

[10]  L. Vissers,et al.  Genomic microarrays in mental retardation: from copy number variation to gene, from research to diagnosis , 2009, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[11]  Savita Shrivastava,et al.  Validation of a next-generation sequencing assay for clinical molecular oncology. , 2014, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[12]  Michael E. Coulter,et al.  Chromosomal microarray testing influences medical management , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[13]  D. Bittel,et al.  Validation of the Agilent 244K oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization platform for clinical cytogenetic diagnosis. , 2009, American journal of clinical pathology.

[14]  Jake K. Byrnes,et al.  Genome-wide association study of copy number variation in 16,000 cases of eight common diseases and 3,000 shared controls , 2010, Nature.

[15]  E. van Binsbergen,et al.  Array analysis and karyotyping: workflow consequences based on a retrospective study of 36,325 patients with idiopathic developmental delay in the Netherlands. , 2009, European journal of medical genetics.