Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31500583›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2019

Benchmarking variant identification tools for plant diversity discovery.

Xing Wu, Christopher Heffelfinger, Hongyu Zhao, Stephen L Dellaporta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Multiple Variant Calling Pipelines in Wheat Whole Exome Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

4 authors.

Xing WuDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520-8104, USA.
Christopher HeffelfingerDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520-8104, USA.
Hongyu ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520-8034, USA.
Stephen L DellaportaDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520-8104, USA. stephen.dellaporta@yale.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7452-3291

Funding

National Science Foundation Plant Genome Research Program 1444478
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic VariationBenchmarkingDatabases, GeneticGenome, PlantGenomicsImputationMachine learningRead alignmentVariant callingVariant filtering

Identifiers

PMID31500583
PMCPMC6734213

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.