ArticlePloS one2015
Should we have blind faith in bioinformatics software? Illustrations from the SNAP web-based tool.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of depression on genetic predisposition to type 2 diabetes in a multiethnic longitudinal study.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Genetic contribution to lipid levels in early life based on 158 loci validated in adults: the FAMILY study.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- From big data analysis to personalized medicine for all: challenges and opportunities.BMC medical genomics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioinformatics tools have gained popularity in biology but little is known about their validity. We aimed to assess the early contribution of 415 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with eight cardio-metabolic traits at the genome-wide significance level in adults in the Family Atherosclerosis Monitoring In earLY Life (FAMILY) birth cohort. We used the popular web-based tool SNAP to assess the availability of the 415 SNPs in the Illumina Cardio-Metabochip genotyped in the FAMILY study participants. We then compared the SNAP output with the Cardio-Metabochip file provided by Illumina using chromosome and chromosomal positions of SNPs from NCBI Human Genome Browser (Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37). With the HapMap 3 release 2 reference, 201 out of 415 SNPs were reported as missing in the Cardio-Metabochip by the SNAP output. However, the Cardio-Metabochip file revealed that 152 of these 201 SNPs were in fact present in the Cardio-Metabochip array (false negative rate of 36.6%). With the more recent 1000 Genomes Project release, we found a false-negative rate of 17.6% by comparing the outputs of SNAP and the Illumina product file. We did not find any 'false positive' SNPs (SNPs specified as available in the Cardio-Metabochip by SNAP, but not by the Cardio-Metabochip Illumina file). The Cohen's Kappa coefficient, which calculates the percentage of agreement between both methods, indicated that the validity of SNAP was fair to moderate depending on the reference used (the HapMap 3 or 1000 Genomes). In conclusion, we demonstrate that the SNAP outputs for the Cardio-Metabochip are invalid. This study illustrates the importance of systematically assessing the validity of bioinformatics tools in an independent manner. We propose a series of guidelines to improve practices in the fast-moving field of bioinformatics software implementation.
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.