ArticlePloS one2015
Reproducibility of Variant Calls in Replicate Next Generation Sequencing Experiments.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical decisions in clonal hematopoiesis: a contemporary review for clinicians.Haematologica · 2026Review
- Hidden biases in germline structural variant detection.Genome biology · 2021Article
- A new method to accurately identify single nucleotide variants using small FFPE breast samples.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Genomic and Phenotypic Stability in an Industrial Production Process.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2020Article
- False-negative errors in next-generation sequencing contribute substantially to inconsistency of mutation databases.PloS one · 2019Article
- High-resolution deconstruction of evolution induced by chemotherapy treatments in breast cancer xenografts.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Reliability of Whole-Exome Sequencing for Assessing Intratumor Genetic Heterogeneity.Cell reports · 2018Article
- Analysis of the mutational landscape of classic Hodgkin lymphoma identifies disease heterogeneity and potential therapeutic targets.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Cell Dispersal Influences Tumor Heterogeneity and Introduces a Bias in NGS Data Interpretation.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nucleotide alterations detected by next generation sequencing are not always true biological changes but could represent sequencing errors. Even highly accurate methods can yield substantial error rates when applied to millions of nucleotides. In this study, we examined the reproducibility of nucleotide variant calls in replicate sequencing experiments of the same genomic DNA. We performed targeted sequencing of all known human protein kinase genes (kinome) (~3.2 Mb) using the SOLiD v4 platform. Seventeen breast cancer samples were sequenced in duplicate (n=14) or triplicate (n=3) to assess concordance of all calls and single nucleotide variant (SNV) calls. The concordance rates over the entire sequenced region were >99.99%, while the concordance rates for SNVs were 54.3-75.5%. There was substantial variation in basic sequencing metrics from experiment to experiment. The type of nucleotide substitution and genomic location of the variant had little impact on concordance but concordance increased with coverage level, variant allele count (VAC), variant allele frequency (VAF), variant allele quality and p-value of SNV-call. The most important determinants of concordance were VAC and VAF. Even using the highest stringency of QC metrics the reproducibility of SNV calls was around 80% suggesting that erroneous variant calling can be as high as 20-40% in a single experiment. The sequence data have been deposited into the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) with accession number EGAS00001000826.
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.