ArticleBMC genomics2019
Benchmarking variant identification tools for plant diversity discovery.
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 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization of Six Complete Mitochondrial Genomes and ITS Sequences fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- ChoCallate: a computational pipeline for consensus germline variant calling in genomic sequencing data.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Genome-Wide, High-Density Genotyping Approaches for Plant Germplasm Characterisation (Methods and Applications).International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Epigenetic regulation and maternal-to-zygotic transition in dwarf surf clam (Zoological research · 2025Article
- Benchmarking of low coverage sequencing workflows for precision genotyping in eggplant.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- The evaluation of different combinations of enzyme set, aligner and caller in GBS sequencing of soybean.Plant methods · 2025Article
- A comprehensive catalog of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) genome.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Temporal sex specific brain gene expression pattern during early rat embryonic development.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Article
- Prioritized candidate causal haplotype blocks in plant genome-wide association studies.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- The evaluation of Bcftools mpileup and GATK HaplotypeCaller for variant calling in non-human species.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A targeted capture approach to generating reference sequence databases for chloroplast gene regions.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Analysis of the Plastid Genome Sequence During Maize Seedling Development.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Multiple Variant Calling Pipelines in Wheat Whole Exome Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Combination of long- and short-read sequencing fully resolves complex repeats of herpes simplex virus 2 strain MS complete genome.Microbial genomics · 2021Article
- One is not enough: On the effects of reference genome for the mapping and subsequent analyses of short-reads.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of variant calling tools for large plant genome re-sequencing.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ability to accurately and comprehensively identify genomic variations is critical for plant studies utilizing high-throughput sequencing. Most bioinformatics tools for processing next-generation sequencing data were originally developed and tested in human studies, raising questions as to their efficacy for plant research. A detailed evaluation of the entire variant calling pipeline, including alignment, variant calling, variant filtering, and imputation was performed on different programs using both simulated and real plant genomic datasets.
resultsA comparison of SOAP2, Bowtie2, and BWA-MEM found that BWA-MEM was consistently able to align the most reads with high accuracy, whereas Bowtie2 had the highest overall accuracy. Comparative results of GATK HaplotypCaller versus SAMtools mpileup indicated that the choice of variant caller affected precision and recall differentially depending on the levels of diversity, sequence coverage and genome complexity. A cross-reference experiment of S. lycopersicum and S. pennellii reference genomes revealed the inadequacy of single reference genome for variant discovery that includes distantly-related plant individuals. Machine-learning-based variant filtering strategy outperformed the traditional hard-cutoff strategy resulting in higher number of true positive variants and fewer false positive variants. A 2-step imputation method, which utilized a set of high-confidence SNPs as the reference panel, showed up to 60% higher accuracy than direct LD-based imputation.
conclusionsPrograms in the variant discovery pipeline have different performance on plant genomic dataset. Choice of the programs is subjected to the goal of the study and available resources. This study serves as an important guiding information for plant biologists utilizing next-generation sequencing data for diversity characterization and crop improvement.
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.