Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26486989›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

Comparison among three variant callers and assessment of the accuracy of imputation from SNP array data to whole-genome sequence level in chicken.

Guiyan Ni, Tim M Strom, Hubert Pausch, Christian Reimer, Rudolf Preisinger, Henner Simianer, Malena Erbe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Guiyan NiAnimal Breeding and Genetics Group, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany. gyni.ni@agr.uni-goettingen.de.
Tim M StromInstitute of Human Genetics, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany. timstrom@helmholtz-muenchen.de.
Hubert PauschChair of Animal Breeding, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany. Hubert.Pausch@tz.agrar.tu-muenchen.de.
Christian ReimerAnimal Breeding and Genetics Group, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany. creimer@uni-goettingen.de.
Rudolf PreisingerLohmann Tierzucht GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany. preisinger@ltz.de.
Henner SimianerAnimal Breeding and Genetics Group, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany. hsimian@uni-goettingen.de.
Malena ErbeAnimal Breeding and Genetics Group, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany. Malena.Erbe@lfl.bayern.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe technical progress in the last decade has made it possible to sequence millions of DNA reads in a relatively short time frame. Several variant callers based on different algorithms have emerged and have made it possible to extract single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) out of the whole-genome sequence. Often, only a few individuals of a population are sequenced completely and imputation is used to obtain genotypes for all sequence-based SNP loci for other individuals, which have been genotyped for a subset of SNPs using a genotyping array.

methodsFirst, we compared the sets of variants detected with different variant callers, namely GATK, freebayes and SAMtools, and checked the quality of genotypes of the called variants in a set of 50 fully sequenced white and brown layers. Second, we assessed the imputation accuracy (measured as the correlation between imputed and true genotype per SNP and per individual, and genotype conflict between father-progeny pairs) when imputing from high density SNP array data to whole-genome sequence using data from around 1000 individuals from six different generations. Three different imputation programs (Minimac, FImpute and IMPUTE2) were checked in different validation scenarios.

resultsThere were 1,741,573 SNPs detected by all three callers on the studied chromosomes 3, 6, and 28, which was 71.6 % (81.6 %, 88.0 %) of SNPs detected by GATK (SAMtools, freebayes) in total. Genotype concordance (GC) defined as the proportion of individuals whose array-derived genotypes are the same as the sequence-derived genotypes over all non-missing SNPs on the array were 0.98 (GATK), 0.97 (freebayes) and 0.98 (SAMtools). Furthermore, the percentage of variants that had high values (>0.9) for another three measures (non-reference sensitivity, non-reference genotype concordance and precision) were 90 (88, 75) for GATK (SAMtools, freebayes). With all imputation programs, correlation between original and imputed genotypes was >0.95 on average with randomly masked 1000 SNPs from the SNP array and >0.85 for a leave-one-out cross-validation within sequenced individuals.

conclusionsPerformance of all variant callers studied was very good in general, particularly for GATK and SAMtools. FImpute performed slightly worse than Minimac and IMPUTE2 in terms of genotype correlation, especially for SNPs with low minor allele frequency, while it had lowest numbers in Mendelian conflicts in available father-progeny pairs. Correlations of real and imputed genotypes remained constantly high even if individuals to be imputed were several generations away from the sequenced individuals.

Indexed as

GenotypeAlgorithmsAllelesAnimalsChickensGenome-Wide Association StudyHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID26486989
PMCPMC4618161

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.