ArticlePloS one2017
GLM-based optimization of NGS data analysis: A case study of Roche 454, Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina NextSeq sequencing data.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- appreci8: a pipeline for precise variant calling integrating 8 tools.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- High-frequency, low-coverage "false positives" mutations may be true in GS Junior sequencing studies.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are various next-generation sequencing techniques, all of them striving to replace Sanger sequencing as the gold standard. However, false positive calls of single nucleotide variants and especially indels are a widely known problem of basically all sequencing platforms.
methodsWe considered three common next-generation sequencers-Roche 454, Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina NextSeq-and applied standard as well as optimized variant calling pipelines. Optimization was achieved by combining information of 23 diverse parameters characterizing the reported variants and generating individually calibrated generalized linear models. Models were calibrated using amplicon-based targeted sequencing data (19 genes, 28,775 bp) from seven to 12 myelodysplastic syndrome patients. Evaluation of the optimized pipelines and platforms was performed using sequencing data from three additional myelodysplastic syndrome patients.
resultsUsing standard analysis methods, true mutations were missed and the obtained results contained many artifacts-no matter which platform was considered. Analysis of the parameters characterizing the true and false positive calls revealed significant platform- and variant specific differences. Application of optimized variant calling pipelines considerably improved results. 76% of all false positive single nucleotide variants and 97% of all false positive indels could be filtered out. Positive predictive values could be increased by factors of 1.07 to 1.27 in case of single nucleotide variant calling and by factors of 3.33 to 53.87 in case of indel calling. Application of the optimized variant calling pipelines leads to comparable results for all next-generation sequencing platforms analyzed. However, regarding clinical diagnostics it needs to be considered that even the optimized results still contained false positive as well as false negative calls.
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.