Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25289185›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

Detailed comparison of two popular variant calling packages for exome and targeted exon studies.

Charles D Warden, Aaron W Adamson, Susan L Neuhausen, Xiwei Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Targeted Sequencing Identifies the Genetic Variants Associated with High-altitude Polycythemia in the Tibetan Population.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2022
    Article
  9. Genetic Diversity ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  10. Multiple Variant Calling Pipelines in Wheat Whole Exome Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Insights IntoFrontiers in genetics · 2018
    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

4 authors.

Charles D WardenDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI , USA.
Aaron W AdamsonDepartment of Population Sciences, City of Hope National Medical Center , Duarte, CA , USA.
Susan L NeuhausenDepartment of Population Sciences, City of Hope National Medical Center , Duarte, CA , USA.
Xiwei WuIntegrative Genomics Core, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, City of Hope National Medical Center , Duarte, CA , USA.

Funding

Transgenic Mouse FacilityP30CA033572 · NCI · CITY OF HOPE/BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI STANLEY R. HAMILTON · 1985 to 2026
$86.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA033572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) is commonly used for variant calling of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and small insertions and deletions (indels) from short-read sequencing data aligned against a reference genome. There have been a number of variant calling comparisons against GATK, but an equally comprehensive comparison for VarScan not yet been performed. More specifically, we compare (1) the effects of different pre-processing steps prior to variant calling with both GATK and VarScan, (2) VarScan variants called with increasingly conservative parameters, and (3) filtered and unfiltered GATK variant calls (for both the UnifiedGenotyper and the HaplotypeCaller). Variant calling was performed on three datasets (1 targeted exon dataset and 2 exome datasets), each with approximately a dozen subjects. In most cases, pre-processing steps (e.g., indel realignment and quality score base recalibration using GATK) had only a modest impact on the variant calls, but the importance of the pre-processing steps varied between datasets and variant callers. Based upon concordance statistics presented in this study, we recommend GATK users focus on "high-quality" GATK variants by filtering out variants flagged as low-quality. We also found that running VarScan with a conservative set of parameters (referred to as "VarScan-Cons") resulted in a reproducible list of variants, with high concordance (>97%) to high-quality variants called by the GATK UnifiedGenotyper and HaplotypeCaller. These conservative parameters result in decreased sensitivity, but the VarScan-Cons variant list could still recover 84-88% of the high-quality GATK SNPs in the exome datasets. This study also provides limited evidence that VarScan-Cons has a decreased false positive rate among novel variants (relative to high-quality GATK SNPs) and that the GATK HaplotypeCaller has an increased false positive rate for indels (relative to VarScan-Cons and high-quality GATK UnifiedGenotyper indels). More broadly, we believe the metrics used for comparison in this study can be useful in assessing the quality of variant calls in the context of a specific experimental design. As an example, a limited number of variant calling comparisons are also performed on two additional variant callers.

Indexed as

ExomeGATKSmall indelSNPTargeted sequencingVariant callingVarScan

Identifiers

PMID25289185
PMCPMC4184249

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.