Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25294605›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2014

SNPest: a probabilistic graphical model for estimating genotypes.

Stinus Lindgreen, Anders Krogh, Jakob Skou Pedersen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. snpAD: an ancient DNA genotype caller.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Toward high-resolution population genomics using archaeological samples.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2016
    Review
  4. Reconstructing ancient genomes and epigenomes.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2015
    Review
  5. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Stinus LindgreenSection for Computational and RNA Biology, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Ole Maaloes Vej, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark. stinus@binf.ku.dk.
Anders Krogh
Jakob Skou Pedersen
University of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Canterbury · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the use of next-generation sequencing technologies is becoming more widespread, the need for robust software to help with the analysis is growing as well. A key challenge when analyzing sequencing data is the prediction of genotypes from the reads, i.e. correct inference of the underlying DNA sequences that gave rise to the sequenced fragments. For diploid organisms, the genotyper should be able to predict both alleles in the individual. Variations between the individual and the population can then be analyzed by looking for SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in order to investigate diseases or phenotypic features. To perform robust and high confidence genotyping and SNP calling, methods are needed that take the technology specific limitations into account and can model different sources of error. As an example, ancient DNA poses special challenges as the data is often shallow and subject to errors induced by post mortem damage.

findingsWe present a novel approach to the genotyping problem where a probabilistic framework describing the process from sampling to sequencing is implemented as a graphical model. This makes it possible to model technology specific errors and other sources of variation that can affect the result. The inferred genotype is given a posterior probability to signify the confidence in the result. SNPest has already been used to genotype large scale projects such as the first ancient human genome published in 2010.

conclusionsWe compare the performance of SNPest to a number of other widely used genotypers on both real and simulated data, covering both haploid and diploid genomes. We investigate the effects of read depth, of removing adapters before mapping and genotyping, of using different mapping tools, and of using the correct model in the genotyping process. We show that the performance of SNPest is comparable to existing methods, and we also illustrate cases where SNPest has an advantage over other methods, e.g. when dealing with simulated ancient DNA.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingModels, StatisticalPolymorphism, Single NucleotideComputer SimulationDiploidyEscherichia coliGene FrequencyGenetic Association StudiesGenotypeHaploidyHumansPhenotypeProbabilityReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID25294605
PMCPMC4203901
OpenAlexW2058907400

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.