Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32151775›Full record

ArticleInfection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases2020

Evaluation of haplotype callers for next-generation sequencing of viruses.

Anton Eliseev, Keylie M Gibson, Pavel Avdeyev, Dmitry Novik, Matthew L Bendall, Marcos Pérez-Losada, Nikita Alexeev, Keith A Crandall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Approaches to Studying Viral Pangenome Variation Graphs.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Quantifying In-Host Quasispecies Evolution.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Anton EliseevComputer Technologies Laboratory, ITMO University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Keylie M GibsonComputational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: kmgibson@gwu.edu.
Pavel AvdeyevComputational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Mathematics, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Dmitry NovikComputer Technologies Laboratory, ITMO University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Matthew L BendallComputational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Marcos Pérez-LosadaComputational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Vairão, Portugal.
Nikita AlexeevComputer Technologies Laboratory, ITMO University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Keith A CrandallComputational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

SWG 2: Cure Research Scientific Working GroupP30AI117970 · NIAID · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Italo Mocchetti · 2015 to 2026
$29.6M
Clinical and Translational Science Institute at Childrens NationalUL1TR001876 · NCATS · CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BELL, MICHAEL J · 2016 to 2021
$25.6M
Human Endogenous Retroelements in HIV ImmunopathogenesisR01AI076059 · NIAID · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI NIXON, DOUGLAS F · 2009 to 2017
$3.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001876NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI117970NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI076059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, the standard practice for assembling next-generation sequencing (NGS) reads of viral genomes is to summarize thousands of individual short reads into a single consensus sequence, thus confounding useful intra-host diversity information for molecular phylodynamic inference. It is hypothesized that a few viral strains may dominate the intra-host genetic diversity with a variety of lower frequency strains comprising the rest of the population. Several software tools currently exist to convert NGS sequence variants into haplotypes. Previous benchmarks of viral haplotype reconstruction programs used simulation scenarios that are useful from a mathematical perspective but do not reflect viral evolution and epidemiology. Here, we tested twelve NGS haplotype reconstruction methods using viral populations simulated under realistic evolutionary dynamics. We simulated coalescent-based populations that spanned known levels of viral genetic diversity, including mutation rates, sample size and effective population size, to test the limits of the haplotype reconstruction methods and to ensure coverage of predicted intra-host viral diversity levels (especially HIV-1). All twelve investigated haplotype callers showed variable performance and produced drastically different results that were mainly driven by differences in mutation rate and, to a lesser extent, in effective population size. Most methods were able to accurately reconstruct haplotypes when genetic diversity was low. However, under higher levels of diversity (e.g., those seen intra-host HIV-1 infections), haplotype reconstruction quality was highly variable and, on average, poor. All haplotype reconstruction tools, except QuasiRecomb and ShoRAH, greatly underestimated intra-host diversity and the true number of haplotypes. PredictHaplo outperformed, in regard to highest precision, recall, and lowest UniFrac distance values, the other haplotype reconstruction tools followed by CliqueSNV, which, given more computational time, may have outperformed PredictHaplo. Here, we present an extensive comparison of available viral haplotype reconstruction tools and provide insights for future improvements in haplotype reconstruction tools using both short-read and long-read technologies.

Indexed as

Genome, ViralHaplotypesComputational BiologyGenetic VariationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHIV-1HIV InfectionsHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansMutation RatePopulation DensityFast-evolving virusesHaplotype reconstructionHIVIntra-host diversityNext-generation sequencingSimulations

Identifiers

PMID32151775
PMCPMC7293574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.