# WGS CN data and functional partial deletions

**URL:** <https://forum.depmap.org/t/wgs-cn-data-and-functional-partial-deletions/3336>\
**Category:** Q&A\
**Created:** [June 12, 2024, 1:06pm UTC](https://forum.depmap.org/t/wgs-cn-data-and-functional-partial-deletions/3336 "2024-06-12T13:06:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Daphne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c77e96/32.png) [@Daphne](https://forum.depmap.org/u/Daphne)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 1:06pm UTC](https://forum.depmap.org/t/wgs-cn-data-and-functional-partial-deletions/3336/1 "2024-06-12T13:06:10Z")

</div>

Hello,

I have a question regarding the new CN data released with the DepMap release 24Q2. It appears that functional partial gene deletions are not detected in the WGS/WES derived CN data (_OmicsAbsoluteCNGene.csv_).

For example, the cell line NCI-H1650 has a partial deletion of the _PTEN_ gene that is described as a functional deletion [[reference](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205120/)]. The CN call for _PTEN_ based on WGS resulted in an absolute copy number of 1 (with ploidy 2.20) and the functional deletion is therefore not detected with the standard CN annotation. However, when looking at the segmented data (_OmicsAbsoluteCNSegmentsProfile.csv_), a segment (chr10:87963620-87979619) which partially covers the _PTEN_ coding sequence has a copy number of 0 (_figure_).

Do you have some thoughts on why the difference occurs and the best approach to identify these partial deletions?

 ![segment_DepMapPNG](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/depmap/original/2X/1/131bc4bf28e76cda1ab971b7a484acf0a5246549.png)  
_Figure: Coverage of the PTEN gene by the segment chr10:87963620-87979619_.

Many thanks!

Daphne

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![simz](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/forum.depmap.org/simz/32/440_2.png) [@simz](https://forum.depmap.org/u/simz)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 2:12pm UTC](https://forum.depmap.org/t/wgs-cn-data-and-functional-partial-deletions/3336/2 "2024-06-12T14:12:57Z")

</div>

Hi Daphne,

Thanks for reaching out.

In this case, this segment was surrounded by two segments that have CN=2. Since we use a weighted average approach to transform the segment-level data to gene-level matrix, the gene-level copy number was averaged to 1.

It is challenging to summarize CN on the gene level, as CNV segmentation is not aware of gene boundaries. We are currently revising this approach, but in the meantime, I’d recommend referring to the segment-level data for more granular information.

Hope this helps,  
Simone

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Daphne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c77e96/32.png) [@Daphne](https://forum.depmap.org/u/Daphne)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 2:45pm UTC](https://forum.depmap.org/t/wgs-cn-data-and-functional-partial-deletions/3336/3 "2024-06-12T14:45:47Z")

</div>

Hi Simone,

Thanks for the clear explanation!

Daphne