Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25144537›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Choice of reference sequence and assembler for alignment of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error in SNP analyses.

Arthur W Pightling, Nicholas Petronella, Franco Pagotto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Probing Genomic Diversity ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Whole Genome Sequence Analysis ofMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arthur W PightlingListeriosis Reference Service for Canada, Research Division, Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nicholas PetronellaBiostatistics and Modelling Division, Bureau of Food Surveillance and Science Integration, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Franco PagottoListeriosis Reference Service for Canada, Research Division, Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Health Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The wide availability of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and an abundance of open-source software have made detection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in bacterial genomes an increasingly accessible and effective tool for comparative analyses. Thus, ensuring that real nucleotide differences between genomes (i.e., true SNPs) are detected at high rates and that the influences of errors (such as false positive SNPs, ambiguously called sites, and gaps) are mitigated is of utmost importance. The choices researchers make regarding the generation and analysis of WGS data can greatly influence the accuracy of short-read sequence alignments and, therefore, the efficacy of such experiments. We studied the effects of some of these choices, including: i) depth of sequencing coverage, ii) choice of reference-guided short-read sequence assembler, iii) choice of reference genome, and iv) whether to perform read-quality filtering and trimming, on our ability to detect true SNPs and on the frequencies of errors. We performed benchmarking experiments, during which we assembled simulated and real Listeria monocytogenes strain 08-5578 short-read sequence datasets of varying quality with four commonly used assemblers (BWA, MOSAIK, Novoalign, and SMALT), using reference genomes of varying genetic distances, and with or without read pre-processing (i.e., quality filtering and trimming). We found that assemblies of at least 50-fold coverage provided the most accurate results. In addition, MOSAIK yielded the fewest errors when reads were aligned to a nearly identical reference genome, while using SMALT to align reads against a reference sequence that is ∼0.82% distant from 08-5578 at the nucleotide level resulted in the detection of the greatest numbers of true SNPs and the fewest errors. Finally, we show that whether read pre-processing improves SNP detection depends upon the choice of reference sequence and assembler. In total, this study demonstrates that researchers should test a variety of conditions to achieve optimal results.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialListeria monocytogenesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence AnalysisSoftware

Identifiers

PMID25144537
PMCPMC4140716
OpenAlexW1966966274

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.