Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28205675›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2017

BCFtools/csq: haplotype-aware variant consequences.

Petr Danecek, Shane A McCarthy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 284 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
284citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

284 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Domestic travel as a driver for the dissemination ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

224 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Petr DanecekWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton CB10 1SA, UK.
Shane A McCarthyWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton CB10 1SA, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationPrediction of functional variant consequences is an important part of sequencing pipelines, allowing the categorization and prioritization of genetic variants for follow up analysis. However, current predictors analyze variants as isolated events, which can lead to incorrect predictions when adjacent variants alter the same codon, or when a frame-shifting indel is followed by a frame-restoring indel. Exploiting known haplotype information when making consequence predictions can resolve these issues.

resultsBCFtools/csq is a fast program for haplotype-aware consequence calling which can take into account known phase. Consequence predictions are changed for 501 of 5019 compound variants found in the 81.7M variants in the 1000 Genomes Project data, with an average of 139 compound variants per haplotype. Predictions match existing tools when run in localized mode, but the program is an order of magnitude faster and requires an order of magnitude less memory. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The program is freely available for commercial and non-commercial use in the BCFtools package which is available for download from http://samtools.github.io/bcftools . CONTACT: pd3@sanger.ac.uk. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationGenome, HumanHaplotypesSoftwareAlgorithmsGenomicsHumansINDEL MutationSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID28205675
PMCPMC5870570

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.