Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples.
other
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 34928946.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009684 and PMC identifier 8722721.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a powerful screening method for fetal aneuploidy detection, relying on laboratory and computational analysis of cell-free DNA. Although several published computational NIPT analysis tools are available, no prior comprehensive, head-to-head accuracy comparison of the various tools has been published. Here, we compared the outcome accuracies obtained for clinically validated samples with five commonly used computational NIPT aneuploidy analysis tools (WisecondorX, NIPTeR, NIPTmer, RAPIDR, and GIPseq) across various sequencing depths (coverage) and fetal DNA fractions. The sample set included cases of fetal trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), and trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome). We determined that all of the compared tools were considerably affected by lower sequencing depths, such that increasing proportions of undetected trisomy cases (false negatives) were observed as the sequencing depth decreased. We summarised our benchmarking results and highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each computational NIPT software. To conclude, trisomy detection for lower coverage NIPT samples (e.g. 2.5M reads per sample) is technically possible but can, with some NIPT tools, produce troubling rates of inaccurate trisomy detection, especially in low-FF samples.
Medical subject headings
- Aneuploidy
- Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted
- Noninvasive Prenatal Testing
- Software