ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2017
Using genotype array data to compare multi- and single-sample variant calls and improve variant call sets from deep coverage whole-genome sequencing data.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2017. 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.
- Time-Series Expression Profile Analysis of Post-Traumatic Joint Contracture in Rats at the Early Stages of the Healing Process.Journal of inflammation research · 2023Article
- Evaluation of serverless computing for scalable execution of a joint variant calling workflow.PloS one · 2021Article
- The application of deep learning for the classification of correct and incorrect SNP genotypes from whole-genome DNA sequencing pipelines.Journal of applied genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motivation: Variant calling from next-generation sequencing (NGS) data is susceptible to false positive calls due to sequencing, mapping and other errors. To better distinguish true from false positive calls, we present a method that uses genotype array data from the sequenced samples, rather than public data such as HapMap or dbSNP, to train an accurate classifier using Random Forests. We demonstrate our method on a set of variant calls obtained from 642 African-ancestry genomes from the Consortium on Asthma among African-ancestry Populations in the Americas (CAAPA), sequenced to high depth (30X). Results: We have applied our classifier to compare call sets generated with different calling methods, including both single-sample and multi-sample callers. At a False Positive Rate of 5%, our method determines true positive rates of 97.5%, 95% and 99% on variant calls obtained using Illuminas single-sample caller CASAVA, Real Time Genomics multisample variant caller, and the GATK UnifiedGenotyper, respectively. Since NGS sequencing data may be accompanied by genotype data for the same samples, either collected concurrent to sequencing or from a previous study, our method can be trained on each dataset to provide a more accurate computational validation of site calls compared to generic methods. Moreover, our method allows for adjustment based on allele frequency (e.g. a different set of criteria to determine quality for rare versus common variants) and thereby provides insight into sequencing characteristics that indicate call quality for variants of different frequencies. Availability and Implementation: Code is available on Github at: https://github.com/suyashss/variant_validation. Contacts: suyashs@stanford.edu or mtaub@jhsph.edu. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.