ArticleBMC genomics2019
Recurrent miscalling of missense variation from short-read genome sequence data.
Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- European ash pangenome reveals widespread structural variation and genetic basis of low ash dieback susceptibility.Nature communications · 2026Article
- A multi-ethnic reference map of T cell receptor germline diversity reveals evidence of natural selection on alpha chain genes.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Drivers of systemic male-female allele frequency divergence in humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- ZNF334 truncation mutation drives cold-induced autoinflammation.EMBO molecular medicine · 2025Article
- Increasing pathogenic germline variant diagnosis rates in precision medicine: current best practices and future opportunities.Human genomics · 2025Review
- A conditional knockout rat resource of mitochondrial protein-coding genes via a DdCBE-induced premature stop codon.Science advances · 2023Article
- Investigating the characteristics of genes and variants associated with self-reported hearing difficulty in older adults in the UK Biobank.BMC biology · 2022Article
- Bioinformatic Challenges Detecting Genetic Variation in Precision Medicine Programs.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Detecting Causal Variants in Mendelian Disorders Using Whole-Genome Sequencing.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Review
- GOTI, a method to identify genome-wide off-target effects of genome editing in mouse embryos.Nature protocols · 2020Article
- VarI-COSI 2018: a forum for research advances in variant interpretation and diagnostics.BMC genomics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShort-read resequencing of genomes produces abundant information of the genetic variation of individuals. Due to their numerous nature, these variants are rarely exhaustively validated. Furthermore, low levels of undetected variant miscalling will have a systematic and disproportionate impact on the interpretation of individual genome sequence information, especially should these also be carried through into in reference databases of genomic variation.
resultsWe find that sequence variation from short-read sequence data is subject to recurrent-yet-intermittent miscalling that occurs in a sequence intrinsic manner and is very sensitive to sequence read length. The miscalls arise from difficulties aligning short reads to redundant genomic regions, where the rate of sequencing error approaches the sequence diversity between redundant regions. We find the resultant miscalled variants to be sensitive to small sequence variations between genomes, and thereby are often intrinsic to an individual, pedigree, strain or human ethnic group. In human exome sequences, we identify 2-300 recurrent false positive variants per individual, almost all of which are present in public databases of human genomic variation. From the exomes of non-reference strains of inbred mice, we identify 3-5000 recurrent false positive variants per mouse - the number of which increasing with greater distance between an individual mouse strain and the reference C57BL6 mouse genome. We show that recurrently miscalled variants may be reproduced for a given genome from repeated simulation rounds of read resampling, realignment and recalling. As such, it is possible to identify more than two-thirds of false positive variation from only ten rounds of simulation.
conclusionIdentification and removal of recurrent false positive variants from specific individual variant sets will improve overall data quality. Variant miscalls arising are highly sequence intrinsic and are often specific to an individual, pedigree or ethnicity. Further, read length is a strong determinant of whether given false variants will be called for any given genome - which has profound significance for cohort studies that pool datasets collected and sequenced at different points in time.
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.