7.5 Structural variant detection methods

Structural variant detection methods are crucial for identifying large-scale genomic changes. These methods range from alignment-based approaches using short reads to assembly-based techniques leveraging long-read sequencing. Each method has its strengths and limitations in capturing different types of variants.

Advances in sequencing technologies and computational algorithms have improved our ability to detect structural variants. However, challenges remain in complex genomic regions and with rare variants. Future directions include integrating multiple data types and developing more sensitive methods for comprehensive variant detection.

Types of structural variants

• Structural variants are large-scale changes in the genome that involve more than 50 base pairs, encompassing deletions, duplications, insertions, inversions, and translocations
• These variants play a significant role in genetic diversity, evolution, and disease susceptibility, making their accurate detection crucial for understanding the complexity of genomes
• Structural variants can have various functional consequences, such as altering gene dosage, disrupting coding sequences, or modifying regulatory elements, leading to phenotypic changes or pathological conditions

Challenges in structural variant detection

• Detecting structural variants poses several challenges due to their size, complexity, and the limitations of sequencing technologies and computational methods
• Structural variants often involve repetitive regions, such as segmental duplications or transposable elements, which can lead to ambiguous mapping of sequencing reads and difficulty in distinguishing true variants from artifacts
• The presence of breakpoints, which are the junctions between the original and altered sequences, adds complexity to the identification and characterization of structural variants, requiring specialized algorithms and approaches

Sequencing technologies for structural variants

Short-read sequencing

Top images from around the web for Short-read sequencing

• 

  Frontiers | SECNVs: A Simulator of Copy Number Variants and Whole-Exome Sequences From Reference ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Targeted variant detection using unaligned RNA-Seq reads | Life Science Alliance View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | SECNVs: A Simulator of Copy Number Variants and Whole-Exome Sequences From Reference ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Targeted variant detection using unaligned RNA-Seq reads | Life Science Alliance View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

Top images from around the web for Short-read sequencing

• 

  Frontiers | SECNVs: A Simulator of Copy Number Variants and Whole-Exome Sequences From Reference ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Targeted variant detection using unaligned RNA-Seq reads | Life Science Alliance View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | SECNVs: A Simulator of Copy Number Variants and Whole-Exome Sequences From Reference ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Targeted variant detection using unaligned RNA-Seq reads | Life Science Alliance View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

• Short-read sequencing technologies (Illumina) generate reads typically ranging from 100 to 300 base pairs, providing high accuracy and throughput at a relatively low cost
• These reads are well-suited for detecting small variants, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and short indels, but have limitations in resolving larger structural variants due to their short read length
• Short-read sequencing relies on indirect evidence, such as discordant read pairs, split reads, or read depth variations, to infer the presence of structural variants, which can lead to false positives or false negatives

Long-read sequencing

• Long-read sequencing technologies (Pacific Biosciences, Oxford Nanopore) produce reads that can span several thousand base pairs or even entire genes, enabling the direct detection of structural variants
• These longer reads can bridge repetitive regions and capture the full sequence of structural variants, providing a more comprehensive view of the genome structure
• However, long-read sequencing has higher error rates compared to short-read sequencing, requiring specialized algorithms for error correction and variant calling

Linked-read sequencing

• Linked-read sequencing (10x Genomics) combines the advantages of short-read sequencing with long-range information by barcoding short reads originating from the same long DNA molecule
• This technology enables the reconstruction of long-range haplotypes and the detection of structural variants that are difficult to resolve with standard short-read sequencing
• Linked-read sequencing provides a cost-effective alternative to long-read sequencing for detecting large-scale structural variants, although it may not capture the full spectrum of variants

Alignment-based methods

Read-depth analysis

• Read-depth analysis relies on the principle that structural variants can lead to changes in the number of sequencing reads mapping to a particular genomic region compared to a reference genome
• Deletions are characterized by a decrease in read depth, while duplications show an increase in read depth, allowing for the identification of copy number variations (CNVs)
• Read-depth methods require normalization to account for biases such as GC content, mappability, and batch effects, and may have limited resolution for detecting precise breakpoints

Split-read mapping

• Split-read mapping identifies structural variants by aligning sequencing reads that span the breakpoints of a variant, resulting in reads that map to different genomic locations or with large gaps
• This approach can pinpoint the exact breakpoints of a structural variant at single-nucleotide resolution, providing valuable information for characterizing the variant type and potential functional impact
• Split-read mapping is more effective for detecting smaller structural variants (<1 kb) and requires sufficient sequencing coverage to capture the reads spanning the breakpoints

Paired-end mapping

• Paired-end mapping leverages the expected insert size and orientation of paired-end sequencing reads to identify structural variants that alter the distance or orientation between the reads
• Discordant read pairs, where the mapping distance or orientation deviates from the expected pattern, can indicate the presence of deletions, duplications, inversions, or translocations
• Paired-end mapping is sensitive to larger structural variants (>1 kb) but may have limited resolution for determining precise breakpoints and can be affected by repetitive regions or chimeric reads

Local assembly

• Local assembly methods aim to reconstruct the sequence of structural variants by assembling the reads that map to the region of interest into contigs or scaffolds
• This approach can recover the full sequence of the variant, including novel insertions or complex rearrangements, and provide a more complete picture of the structural variation
• Local assembly requires sufficient sequencing coverage and can be computationally intensive, especially for large genomes or complex regions with repetitive sequences

Assembly-based methods

De novo assembly

• De novo assembly involves reconstructing the entire genome sequence from the sequencing reads without relying on a reference genome, enabling the discovery of novel structural variants and sequences not present in the reference
• This approach can capture the full spectrum of structural variants, including those in repetitive or complex regions, and provide a more comprehensive view of the genome structure
• De novo assembly requires high sequencing coverage and computational resources, and the resulting assemblies may be fragmented or contain errors, necessitating post-assembly processing and validation

Reference-guided assembly

• Reference-guided assembly leverages a reference genome to guide the assembly process, aligning the sequencing reads to the reference and identifying structural variants based on discrepancies between the assembly and the reference
• This approach can be more efficient and less computationally intensive than de novo assembly, as it benefits from the existing knowledge of the reference genome structure
• However, reference-guided assembly may be biased towards the reference genome and may miss structural variants that are unique to the sample or not well-represented in the reference

Graph-based methods

Breakpoint graph construction

• Breakpoint graphs are data structures that represent the genome as a graph, where nodes represent genomic segments and edges represent adjacencies between segments, allowing for the efficient representation and analysis of structural variants
• Constructing a breakpoint graph involves identifying discordant read pairs, split reads, or assembly contigs that indicate the presence of structural variants and using them to build the graph structure
• Breakpoint graphs can capture complex rearrangements and provide a unified framework for representing and comparing structural variants across multiple samples or species

Variant calling from graphs

• Once a breakpoint graph is constructed, structural variants can be identified by analyzing the topology and properties of the graph, such as the presence of cycles, branching paths, or deviations from the reference genome
• Graph-based variant calling algorithms traverse the graph to identify patterns or signatures that correspond to specific types of structural variants, such as deletions, duplications, inversions, or translocations
• Graph-based methods can handle complex and nested structural variants, and provide a more comprehensive view of the genome structure compared to linear reference-based methods

Machine learning approaches

Feature extraction

• Machine learning approaches for structural variant detection rely on extracting relevant features from sequencing data that can discriminate between true variants and artifacts or normal variation
• Features can include read depth, read pair orientation, split read alignment, assembly contigs, or graph-based metrics, which are used to train machine learning models to classify or predict structural variants
• Feature engineering and selection are crucial steps in developing accurate and robust machine learning models for structural variant detection, requiring domain knowledge and data-driven approaches

Classifier training and evaluation

• Once features are extracted, machine learning classifiers, such as support vector machines, random forests, or deep neural networks, are trained on labeled datasets to learn patterns and distinguish between different types of structural variants
• The trained classifiers are evaluated on independent test datasets to assess their performance, using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, to ensure their generalizability and robustness
• Cross-validation techniques, such as k-fold cross-validation or leave-one-out cross-validation, are used to estimate the performance of the classifiers and prevent overfitting to the training data

Validation and benchmarking

Simulated datasets

• Simulated datasets are generated by introducing artificial structural variants into a reference genome sequence, providing a ground truth for evaluating the performance of structural variant detection methods
• Simulations can mimic different types and sizes of structural variants, sequencing error rates, coverage depths, and other factors that influence the detection accuracy, allowing for a systematic assessment of method sensitivity and specificity
• Simulated datasets are valuable for benchmarking and comparing different structural variant detection methods, as they provide a controlled environment for testing and optimization

Real datasets with known variants

• Real datasets with experimentally validated structural variants serve as gold standards for assessing the performance of detection methods on biological samples
• These datasets can be obtained from public repositories, such as the 1000 Genomes Project, the Genome in a Bottle Consortium, or the Structural Variation Benchmark Consortium, which provide high-quality structural variant calls for different populations and sequencing technologies
• Evaluating methods on real datasets with known variants ensures their applicability to real-world scenarios and helps identify potential biases or limitations in detecting specific types of variants or in different genomic contexts

Comparison of methods

• Comparing the performance of different structural variant detection methods is essential for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and selecting the most appropriate method for a given study or application
• Method comparison involves running multiple methods on the same datasets, both simulated and real, and evaluating their performance using standardized metrics, such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score
• Comparative analyses can reveal the trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity, the impact of sequencing coverage and read length, the ability to handle complex or repetitive regions, and the computational efficiency of different methods

Visualization and interpretation

Structural variant browsers

• Structural variant browsers are specialized genomic visualization tools that allow researchers to explore and interpret structural variants in the context of the reference genome and other genomic annotations
• These browsers, such as the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV) or the UCSC Genome Browser, provide interactive interfaces for visualizing read alignments, read depth, split reads, and other evidence supporting structural variant calls
• Structural variant browsers enable the manual inspection and validation of detected variants, the identification of potential functional impacts, and the comparison of variants across multiple samples or studies

Annotation and functional impact

• Annotating structural variants involves characterizing their genomic location, type, size, and potential functional consequences, such as their impact on genes, regulatory elements, or disease associations
• Functional annotation tools, such as ANNOVAR, VEP, or SnpEff, can be used to predict the effect of structural variants on protein-coding genes, non-coding RNAs, or regulatory regions, based on their overlap with genomic features and databases
• Integrating structural variant annotations with other omics data, such as gene expression, epigenetic modifications, or phenotypic information, can provide insights into the biological significance and clinical relevance of the detected variants

Limitations and future directions

Complex and repetitive regions

• Despite advances in sequencing technologies and computational methods, detecting structural variants in complex and repetitive regions of the genome remains challenging due to the difficulty in uniquely mapping reads and resolving ambiguities
• Repetitive elements, such as segmental duplications, transposable elements, or tandem repeats, can lead to false positive or false negative variant calls, requiring specialized approaches or long-read sequencing to accurately characterize these regions
• Future research should focus on developing methods that can better handle the complexity and variability of repetitive regions, leveraging the information from multiple sequencing technologies and integrating evidence from different data types

Rare and de novo variants

• Detecting rare and de novo structural variants, which are present in a small fraction of the population or arise spontaneously in an individual, is crucial for understanding the genetic basis of rare diseases and developmental disorders
• Rare and de novo variants are often not well-represented in reference genomes or population databases, making their detection and interpretation more challenging and requiring large sample sizes or family-based studies
• Future efforts should aim to develop sensitive and specific methods for identifying rare and de novo structural variants, leveraging the power of long-read sequencing, linked-read sequencing, or single-cell sequencing technologies

Integration with other omics data

• Integrating structural variant data with other omics data, such as transcriptomics, epigenomics, or proteomics, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the functional impact and biological significance of structural variants
• Multi-omics integration can help prioritize candidate variants, elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying phenotypic variation, and identify potential biomarkers or therapeutic targets
• Future research should focus on developing computational frameworks and tools for the integrative analysis of structural variants and other omics data, leveraging machine learning and systems biology approaches to uncover complex genotype-phenotype relationships