Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27604516›Full record

ArticleHuman mutation2016

From Wet-Lab to Variations: Concordance and Speed of Bioinformatics Pipelines for Whole Genome and Whole Exome Sequencing.

Steve Laurie, Marcos Fernandez-Callejo, Santiago Marco-Sola, Jean-Remi Trotta, Jordi Camps, Alejandro Chacón, Antonio Espinosa, Marta Gut, Ivo Gut, Simon Heath and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human mutation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Functional Evidence ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Steve LaurieCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Marcos Fernandez-CallejoCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Santiago Marco-SolaCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Jean-Remi TrottaCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Jordi CampsCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Alejandro ChacónUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Antonio EspinosaUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Marta GutCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Ivo GutCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Simon HeathCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.
Sergi BeltranCNAG-CRG, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As whole genome sequencing becomes cheaper and faster, it will progressively substitute targeted next-generation sequencing as standard practice in research and diagnostics. However, computing cost-performance ratio is not advancing at an equivalent rate. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the robustness of the variant detection process taking into account the computing resources required. We have benchmarked six combinations of state-of-the-art read aligners (BWA-MEM and GEM3) and variant callers (FreeBayes, GATK HaplotypeCaller, SAMtools) on whole genome and whole exome sequencing data from the NA12878 human sample. Results have been compared between them and against the NIST Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) variants reference dataset. We report differences in speed of up to 20 times in some steps of the process and have observed that SNV, and to a lesser extent InDel, detection is highly consistent in 70% of the genome. SNV, and especially InDel, detection is less reliable in 20% of the genome, and almost unfeasible in the remaining 10%. These findings will aid in choosing the appropriate tools bearing in mind objectives, workload, and computing infrastructure available.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyExomeGenetic VariationGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSequence Analysis, DNASoftwarealignmentbenchmarkbioinformaticscomputing speedNA12878NGSvariant callingwhole exome sequencingwhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID27604516
PMCPMC5129537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.