ArticleMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2015
On the design and analysis of next-generation sequencing genotyping for a cohort with haplotype-informative reads.
Article in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, which can provide base-pair resolution genetic information for all types of genetic variations, are increasingly used in genetics research. However, due to the complex nature of NGS technologies and analytics and their relatively high cost, investigators face practical challenges for both design and analysis. These challenges are further complicated by recent methodological developments that make it possible to use haplotype information in sequencing reads. In light of these developments, we conducted comprehensive simulations to evaluate the effects of sequencing coverage, insert size of paired-end reads, and sample size on genotype calling and haplotype phasing in NGS studies. In contrast to previous studies that typically use idealized scenarios to tease out the effects of individual design and analytic decisions, we used a complete analytical pipeline from read mapping and variant detection to genotype calling and haplotype phasing so that we can assess the joint effects of multiple decisions and thus make more realistic recommendations to investigators. Consistent with previous studies, we found that the use of haplotype information in reads can improve the accuracy of genotype calling and haplotype phasing, and we also found that a mixture of short and long insert sizes of paired-end reads may offer even greater accuracy. However, this benefit is only clear in high coverage sequencing where variant detection is close to perfect. Finally, we observed that LD-based refinement methods do not always outperform single site based methods for genotype calling. Therefore, we should choose analytical methods that are appropriate to the sequencing coverage and sample size in order to use haplotype information in sequencing reads.
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.