Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • rcorbett
    Member
    • Sep 2009
    • 29

    CNV analysis on Illumina / Solid genomes

    Hi all,

    I had a look at the wiki and I see there are many tools available for getting copy number changes from read alignments. I am wondering if there is a particular accepted tool that comes most highly recommended.

    I am most often comparing 30X tumour to 30X normal, and I know from experience that GC bias correction is necessary.

    Freec seems like a good candidate however, when comparing matched tumour normal pairs the applied bias correction seems a little less vigorous than I would like.

    Any information is appreciated!
  • valeu
    Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 69

    #2
    I think when you have 30X coverage, FREEC must be a good choice. In addition to copy numbers it will detect LOH regions and it could tell you which regions of gain/loss/LOH are likely to be somatic/germline.

    Comment

    • unagaswamy
      Member
      • May 2010
      • 13

      #3
      XHMM for CNV analysis

      Hi,

      Has anyone tried the xhmm CNV tool on exomes?



      I tried it on five exome bams and I always get an empty vcf file!

      Thanks,
      -Uma

      Comment

      • CraigJ
        Junior Member
        • Jul 2012
        • 8

        #4
        I haven't used this software myself, but I have been looking into CNV software as well, and saw this. While it isn't what I'm looking for, it seems like it could be very useful to you since you are using tumor/normal comparison data.

        The software is VarScan (http://varscan.sourceforge.net/), and a specific section of the software is for finding CNV between normal/abnormal(tumor) samples. Here is the section on that: http://varscan.sourceforge.net/copy-number-calling.html

        Cheers.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • GATTACAT
          Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
          by GATTACAT
          Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
          07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
        • SEQadmin2
          Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
          by SEQadmin2


          I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

          Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
          06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
        0 responses
        11 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
        0 responses
        13 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
        0 responses
        20 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
        0 responses
        54 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Working...