ArticleBMC genomics2014
Edge effects in calling variants from targeted amplicon sequencing.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mining Grapevine Downy Mildew Susceptibility Genes: A Resource for Genomics-Based Breeding and Tailored Gene Editing.Biomolecules · 2021Article
- Adapting SureSelect enrichment protocol to the Ion Torrent S5 platform in molecular diagnostics of craniosynostosis.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Zika viruses of African and Asian lineages cause fetal harm in a mouse model of vertical transmission.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
- Infection via mosquito bite alters Zika virus tissue tropism and replication kinetics in rhesus macaques.Nature communications · 2017Article
- BAMClipper: removing primers from alignments to minimize false-negative mutations in amplicon next-generation sequencing.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Towards standardization of next-generation sequencing of FFPE samples for clinical oncology: intrinsic obstacles and possible solutions.Journal of translational medicine · 2017Article
- Deep sequencing of virus-derived small interfering RNAs and RNA from viral particles shows highly similar mutational landscapes of a plant virus population.Journal of virology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnalysis of targeted amplicon sequencing data presents some unique challenges in comparison to the analysis of random fragment sequencing data. Whereas reads from randomly fragmented DNA have arbitrary start positions, the reads from amplicon sequencing have fixed start positions that coincide with the amplicon boundaries. As a result, any variants near the amplicon boundaries can cause misalignments of multiple reads that can ultimately lead to false-positive or false-negative variant calls.
resultsWe show that amplicon boundaries are variant calling blind spots where the variant calls are highly inaccurate. We propose that an effective strategy to avoid these blind spots is to incorporate the primer bases in obtaining read alignments and post-processing of the alignments, thereby effectively moving these blind spots into the primer binding regions (which are not used for variant calling). Targeted sequencing data analysis pipelines can provide better variant calling accuracy when primer bases are retained and sequenced.
conclusionsRead bases beyond the variant site are necessary for analysis of amplicon sequencing data. Enzymatic primer digestion, if used in the target enrichment process, should leave at least a few primer bases to ensure that these bases are available during data analysis. The primer bases should only be removed immediately before the variant calling step to ensure that the variants can be called irrespective of where they occur within the amplicon insert region.
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.