ArticleHuman genomics2014
Validation and assessment of variant calling pipelines for next-generation sequencing.
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.
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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interpreting whole genome sequencing for investigating tuberculosis transmission: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Benchmarking genomic variant calling tools in inbred mouse strains: recommendations and considerations.Genetics · 2026Article
- Fifteen Years of the Genome Analysis Toolkit as the De Facto Standard in Short-Read Variant Calling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Best practices for improving alignment and variant calling on human sex chromosomes.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Short-Read and Long-Read Whole Genome Sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 Variants Identification.Viruses · 2025Article
- A comprehensive catalog of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) genome.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Genomic signatures of adaptation in native lizards exposed to human-introduced fire ants.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Reversing the decline of threatened koala (Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- FishSNP: a high quality cross-species SNP database of fishes.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Evaluating the performance of low-frequency variant calling tools for the detection of variants from short-read deep sequencing data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence and database for NGS-based diagnosis in rare disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Evaluation of Type 2 Diabetes Risk Variants (Alleles) in the Pashtun Ethnic Population of Pakistan.Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies · 2023Article
- Article
- Bioinformatics: From NGS Data to Biological Complexity in Variant Detection and Oncological Clinical Practice.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- The evaluation of Bcftools mpileup and GATK HaplotypeCaller for variant calling in non-human species.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Review
- Article
- Comparison of GATK and DeepVariant by trio sequencing.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Selection and Drift: A Comparison between Historic and Recent Dutch Friesian Cattle and Recent Holstein Friesian Using WGS Data.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
12 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.