Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25361890›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2014

Evaluation of variant identification methods for whole genome sequencing data in dairy cattle.

Christine F Baes, Marlies A Dolezal, James E Koltes, Beat Bapst, Eric Fritz-Waters, Sandra Jansen, Christine Flury, Heidi Signer-Hasler, Christian Stricker, Rohan Fernando and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Genomic evidence of sex chromosome aneuploidy and infection-associated genotypes in the tsetse fly Glossina fuscipes, the major vector of African trypanosomiasis in Uganda.Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genomic Diversity Evaluation ofFrontiers in genetics · 2019
    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

15 authors.

Christine F BaesBern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL, Länggasse 85, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland. christine.baes@qualitasag.ch.
Marlies A Dolezal
James E Koltes
Beat Bapst
Eric Fritz-Waters
Sandra Jansen
Christine Flury
Heidi Signer-Hasler
Christian Stricker
Rohan Fernando
Ruedi Fries
Juerg Moll
Dorian J Garrick
James M Reecy
Birgit Gredler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in human genomics have allowed unprecedented productivity in terms of algorithms, software, and literature available for translating raw next-generation sequence data into high-quality information. The challenges of variant identification in organisms with lower quality reference genomes are less well documented. We explored the consequences of commonly recommended preparatory steps and the effects of single and multi sample variant identification methods using four publicly available software applications (Platypus, HaplotypeCaller, Samtools and UnifiedGenotyper) on whole genome sequence data of 65 key ancestors of Swiss dairy cattle populations. Accuracy of calling next-generation sequence variants was assessed by comparison to the same loci from medium and high-density single nucleotide variant (SNV) arrays.

resultsThe total number of SNVs identified varied by software and method, with single (multi) sample results ranging from 17.7 to 22.0 (16.9 to 22.0) million variants. Computing time varied considerably between software. Preparatory realignment of insertions and deletions and subsequent base quality score recalibration had only minor effects on the number and quality of SNVs identified by different software, but increased computing time considerably. Average concordance for single (multi) sample results with high-density chip data was 58.3% (87.0%) and average genotype concordance in correctly identified SNVs was 99.2% (99.2%) across software. The average quality of SNVs identified, measured as the ratio of transitions to transversions, was higher using single sample methods than multi sample methods. A consensus approach using results of different software generally provided the highest variant quality in terms of transition/transversion ratio.

conclusionsOur findings serve as a reference for variant identification pipeline development in non-human organisms and help assess the implication of preparatory steps in next-generation sequencing pipelines for organisms with incomplete reference genomes (pipeline code is included). Benchmarking this information should prove particularly useful in processing next-generation sequencing data for use in genome-wide association studies and genomic selection.

Indexed as

CattleGenetic VariationAlgorithmsAnimalsGenomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNASoftware

Identifiers

PMID25361890
PMCPMC4289218

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.