Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25078893›Full record

ArticleHuman genomics2014

Validation and assessment of variant calling pipelines for next-generation sequencing.

Mehdi Pirooznia, Melissa Kramer, Jennifer Parla, Fernando S Goes, James B Potash, W Richard McCombie, Peter P Zandi

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Reversing the decline of threatened koala (Ecology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mehdi Pirooznia
Melissa Kramer
Jennifer Parla
Fernando S Goes
James B Potash
W Richard McCombie
Peter P ZandiDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. pzandi@jhsph.edu.

Funding

2/2-Rare Bipolar Loci Identification Through Synaptome Sequencing.R01MH087992 · NIMH · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI MCCOMBIE, WILLIAM RICHARD · 2010 to 2014
$3.9M
1/2 Rare Bipolar Loci identification through Synaptome SequencingR01MH087979 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI POTASH, JAMES B. · 2010 to 2014
$2.0M
Novel Analytic Methods for Rare Variant Detection in Bipolar DisorderK01MH093809 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PIROOZNIA, MEHDI · 2011 to 2015
$886k
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH093809NIMH NIH HHS K01MH093809NIMH NIH HHS R01MH087979NIMH NIH HHS R01MH087992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe processing and analysis of the large scale data generated by next-generation sequencing (NGS) experiments is challenging and is a burgeoning area of new methods development. Several new bioinformatics tools have been developed for calling sequence variants from NGS data. Here, we validate the variant calling of these tools and compare their relative accuracy to determine which data processing pipeline is optimal.

resultsWe developed a unified pipeline for processing NGS data that encompasses four modules: mapping, filtering, realignment and recalibration, and variant calling. We processed 130 subjects from an ongoing whole exome sequencing study through this pipeline. To evaluate the accuracy of each module, we conducted a series of comparisons between the single nucleotide variant (SNV) calls from the NGS data and either gold-standard Sanger sequencing on a total of 700 variants or array genotyping data on a total of 9,935 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. A head to head comparison showed that Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) provided more accurate calls than SAMtools (positive predictive value of 92.55% vs. 80.35%, respectively). Realignment of mapped reads and recalibration of base quality scores before SNV calling proved to be crucial to accurate variant calling. GATK HaplotypeCaller algorithm for variant calling outperformed the UnifiedGenotype algorithm. We also showed a relationship between mapping quality, read depth and allele balance, and SNV call accuracy. However, if best practices are used in data processing, then additional filtering based on these metrics provides little gains and accuracies of >99% are achievable.

conclusionsOur findings will help to determine the best approach for processing NGS data to confidently call variants for downstream analyses. To enable others to implement and replicate our results, all of our codes are freely available at http://metamoodics.org/wes.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareBipolar DisorderData Interpretation, StatisticalExomeHumansPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID25078893
PMCPMC4129436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.