ArticlePloS one2013
Variant callers for next-generation sequencing data: a comparison study.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
91 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best practices for improving alignment and variant calling on human sex chromosomes.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Comprehensive assessment of whole-genome sequencing-based variant calling pipelines in monozygotic twins.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- cascAGS: Comparative Analysis of SNP Calling Methods for Human Genome Data in the Absence of Gold Standard.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2025Article
- Genomic signatures of adaptation in native lizards exposed to human-introduced fire ants.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in variant calling: a review.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Three decades of rat genomics: approaching the finish(ed) line.Physiological genomics · 2024Review
- Danzhou chicken: a unique genetic resource revealed by genome-wide resequencing data.Poultry science · 2024Article
- FishSNP: a high quality cross-species SNP database of fishes.Scientific data · 2024Article
- From haystack to high precision: advanced sequencing methods to unraveling circulating tumor DNA mutations.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Review
- Evaluating the performance of low-frequency variant calling tools for the detection of variants from short-read deep sequencing data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Cortical type: a conceptual tool for meaningful biological interpretation of high-throughput gene expression data in the human cerebral cortex.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2023Article
- Optimizing Insertion and Deletion Detection Using Next-Generation Sequencing in the Clinical Laboratory.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2022Article
- The evaluation of Bcftools mpileup and GATK HaplotypeCaller for variant calling in non-human species.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A comparison of strategies for generating artificial replicates in RNA-seq experiments.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Whole Genome Sequencing Contributions and Challenges in Disease Reduction Focused on Malaria.Biology · 2022Review
- A whole genome sequencing approach to anterior cruciate ligament rupture-a twin study in two unrelated families.PloS one · 2022Article
- Candidate pigmentation genes related to feather color variation in an indigenous chicken breed revealed by whole genome data.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Comparison of seven SNP calling pipelines for the next-generation sequencing data of chickens.PloS one · 2022Article
- Simulation of African and non-African low and high coverage whole genome sequence data to assess variant calling approaches.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Performance evaluation of pipelines for mapping, variant calling and interval padding, for the analysis of NGS germline panels.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Next generation sequencing (NGS) has been leading the genetic study of human disease into an era of unprecedented productivity. Many bioinformatics pipelines have been developed to call variants from NGS data. The performance of these pipelines depends crucially on the variant caller used and on the calling strategies implemented. We studied the performance of four prevailing callers, SAMtools, GATK, glftools and Atlas2, using single-sample and multiple-sample variant-calling strategies. Using the same aligner, BWA, we built four single-sample and three multiple-sample calling pipelines and applied the pipelines to whole exome sequencing data taken from 20 individuals. We obtained genotypes generated by Illumina Infinium HumanExome v1.1 Beadchip for validation analysis and then used Sanger sequencing as a "gold-standard" method to resolve discrepancies for selected regions of high discordance. Finally, we compared the sensitivity of three of the single-sample calling pipelines using known simulated whole genome sequence data as a gold standard. Overall, for single-sample calling, the called variants were highly consistent across callers and the pairwise overlapping rate was about 0.9. Compared with other callers, GATK had the highest rediscovery rate (0.9969) and specificity (0.99996), and the Ti/Tv ratio out of GATK was closest to the expected value of 3.02. Multiple-sample calling increased the sensitivity. Results from the simulated data suggested that GATK outperformed SAMtools and glfSingle in sensitivity, especially for low coverage data. Further, for the selected discrepant regions evaluated by Sanger sequencing, variant genotypes called by exome sequencing versus the exome array were more accurate, although the average variant sensitivity and overall genotype consistency rate were as high as 95.87% and 99.82%, respectively. In conclusion, GATK showed several advantages over other variant callers for general purpose NGS analyses. The GATK pipelines we developed perform very well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.