|
| 1 | +# LOGAN Tools and Tools Tested |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | + |
| 4 | +## SNV |
| 5 | +| Tools |Pros | Cons | Used in Logan| |
| 6 | +|----|---|---|--- |
| 7 | +|Mutect2 |Part of GATK best practices| | x | |
| 8 | +|Strelka | Fast| Paired only|x| |
| 9 | +|Muse | Fast| Paired only, can't be parallelized|x| |
| 10 | +|Lofreq | Low frequency variants| Slow,Paired only|x| |
| 11 | +|Vardict | Fast | Lower accuracy|x| |
| 12 | +|Varscan | Fast| Lower accuracy|x|| |
| 13 | +|Octopus | Accurate| Slow,High memory|x| |
| 14 | +|Deepsomatic|Relatively fast|Trained on human data|x| |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +## Structural Variants |
| 18 | +| Tools |Pros | Cons | Approach| Used in Logan| |
| 19 | +|----|---|---|---|---| |
| 20 | +|Manta |Accurate, fast| |graph-based| x | |
| 21 | +|SVABA | Deletion detection||local assembly+ multiple alignment|x| |
| 22 | +|GRIDSS | Provides blacklist| Slow, part of HMFtools pipeline|Break end assembly (discordant +split)|x| |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Manta, GridSS, and SvABA are based on read-pairs, split-reads, and local-assemblies. |
| 25 | +References [Joe et al](https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-024-10239-9) |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +## Copy Number |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +| Tools |Pros | Cons | Used in Logan| |
| 30 | +|----|---|---|---| |
| 31 | +|Purple |Complete workflow|Doesn't support mm10, requires SV,SNV calls as well | x | |
| 32 | +|Sequenza | Purity/Ploidy||x| |
| 33 | +|FREEC | Fast | No Purity/Ploidy Estimatation|x| |
| 34 | +|ASCAT | Fast, Purity/Ploidy| |x| |
| 35 | +|CNVkit |Fast | No Purity/Ploidy Estimatation|x| |
| 36 | +|PureCN|Tumor only|Needs Panel of Normals on Sequencing| |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +## Germline |
| 41 | +| Tools |Pros | Cons | Used in Logan| |
| 42 | +|----|---|---|---| |
| 43 | +|Deepvariant |Fast, most accurate| Model trained on human genomes (May not support mm10)| x| |
0 commit comments