Skip to main content

Table 5 Hits shared between CGH and coverage data using the Poisson-Gamma (PG) model, the FREEC software, and the cn.MOPS approach

From: A Poisson hierarchical modelling approach to detecting copy number variation in sequence coverage data

Strain

Methodology

Deletions

Amplifications

Overall

HB3

FREEC

—

—

195/210 (92.9%)

 

cn.MOPS

—

—

214/348 (61.5%)

 

PG with Îł=99%

—

—

431/568 (75.9%)

 

PG with Îł=99.9%

—

—

288/365 (78.9%)

DD2

FREEC

—

—

792/831 (95.3%)

 

cn.MOPS

—

—

746/840 (88.8%)

 

PG with Îł=99%

—

—

854/957 (89.0%)

 

PG with Îł=99.9%

—

—

826/899 (91.9%)

7G8

FREEC

89/154 (57.8%)

285/470 (60.6%)

374/624 (59.9%)

 

cn.MOPS

91/477 (19.1%)

236/1185 (19.9%)

327/1662 (19.7%)

 

PG with Îł=99%

164/243 (67.5%)

216/343 (63.0%)

380/586 (64.9%)

 

PG with Îł=99.9%

153/205 (75.6%)

176/215 (81.9%)

329/420 (78.3%)

GB4

FREEC

32/82 (39.0%)

4/16 (25.0%)

36/98 (36.7%)

 

cn.MOPS

77/197 (39.1%)

28/273 (10.3%)

105/470 (22.3%)

 

PG with Îł=99%

152/262 (59.0%)

24/108 (22.2%)

176/370 (47.6%)

 

PG with Îł=99.9%

148/253 (58.5%)

14/47 (29.8%)

162/300 (54.0%)

  1. CGH hits of HB3 and DD2 lab strains were taken from Samarakoon et al.[19], while CGH hits of 7G8 and GB4 lab strains were obtained by re-analysing the corresponding original data available from Jiang et al.[37]. The percentages in brackets are in relation to the total number of coverage hits produced by the corresponding method.