Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31959124›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2020

Comparison of multiple algorithms to reliably detect structural variants in pears.

Yueyuan Liu, Mingyue Zhang, Jieying Sun, Wenjing Chang, Manyi Sun, Shaoling Zhang, Jun Wu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Yueyuan LiuCenter of Pear Engineering Technology Research, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, Jiangsu, China.
Mingyue ZhangCenter of Pear Engineering Technology Research, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, Jiangsu, China.
Jieying SunCenter of Pear Engineering Technology Research, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, Jiangsu, China.
Wenjing ChangCenter of Pear Engineering Technology Research, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, Jiangsu, China.
Manyi SunCenter of Pear Engineering Technology Research, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, Jiangsu, China.
Shaoling ZhangCenter of Pear Engineering Technology Research, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, Jiangsu, China.
Jun WuCenter of Pear Engineering Technology Research, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, Jiangsu, China. wujun@njau.edu.cn.

Funding

"333 High Level Talents Project" of Jiangsu Province BRA2016367Earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System CARS-28National Natural Science Foundation of China 31725024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructural variations (SVs) have been reported to play an important role in genetic diversity and trait regulation. Many computer algorithms detecting SVs have recently been developed, but the use of multiple algorithms to detect high-confidence SVs has not been studied. The most suitable sequencing depth for detecting SVs in pear is also not known.

resultsIn this study, a pipeline to detect SVs using next-generation and long-read sequencing data was constructed. The performances of seven types of SV detection software using next-generation sequencing (NGS) data and two types of software using long-read sequencing data (SVIM and Sniffles), which are based on different algorithms, were compared. Of the nine software packages evaluated, SVIM identified the most SVs, and Sniffles detected SVs with the highest accuracy (> 90%). When the results from multiple SV detection tools were combined, the SVs identified by both MetaSV and IMR/DENOM, which use NGS data, were more accurate than those identified by both SVIM and Sniffles, with mean accuracies of 98.7 and 96.5%, respectively. The software packages using long-read sequencing data required fewer CPU cores and less memory and ran faster than those using NGS data. In addition, according to the performances of assembly-based algorithms using NGS data, we found that a sequencing depth of 50× is appropriate for detecting SVs in the pear genome.

conclusionThis study provides strong evidence that more than one SV detection software package, each based on a different algorithm, should be used to detect SVs with higher confidence, and that long-read sequencing data are better than NGS data for SV detection. The SV detection pipeline that we have established will facilitate the study of diversity in other crops.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenetic VariationSoftwareGenome, PlantHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPyrusSequence Analysis, DNAAccuracy of SVsLong-read sequencingNGSSequencing depthSV calling pipelineSV detection

Identifiers

PMID31959124
PMCPMC6972009

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.