ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020
Evaluation of variant calling tools for large plant genome re-sequencing.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- A portable recalibration workflow for reference-based variant calling in non-human genomes.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Benchmarking genomic variant calling tools in inbred mouse strains: recommendations and considerations.Genetics · 2026Article
- Unified Multi-Caller Ensemble (UME) Generates an Unbiased Maize Haplotype Map for Variable Coverage Whole Genome Data.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Characterization of Six Complete Mitochondrial Genomes and ITS Sequences fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Multi-context seeds enable fast and high-accuracy read mapping.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Genome-wide association study bridging genomics-phenomics gap in natural plant populations.Journal of applied genetics · 2026Review
- Benchmarking long-read variant calling in diploid and polyploid genomes: insights from human and plants.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Benchmarking of low coverage sequencing workflows for precision genotyping in eggplant.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Discovery of variation in genes related to agronomic traits by sequencing the genome of Cucurbita pepo varieties.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Pangenome graph mitigates heterozygosity overestimation from mapping bias: a case study in Chinese indigenous pigs.BMC biology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive catalog of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) genome.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- NAVIP: Unraveling the influence of neighboring small sequence variants on functional impact prediction.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Kuura-An automated workflow for analyzing WES and WGS data.PloS one · 2024Article
- Transcriptome and Metabolome Analyses Reveal the Mechanism of Corpus Luteum Cyst Formation in Pigs.Genes · 2023Article
- Comprehensive genomic analyses of Vigna unguiculata provide insights into population differentiation and the genetic basis of key agricultural traits.Plant biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Mapping QTL associated with resistance toFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Strobealign: flexible seed size enables ultra-fast and accurate read alignment.Genome biology · 2022Article
- Design and validation of a 63K genome-wide SNP-genotyping platform for caribou/reindeer (Rangifer tarandus).BMC genomics · 2022Article
- A targeted capture approach to generating reference sequence databases for chloroplast gene regions.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscovering single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from agriculture crop genome sequences has been a widely used strategy for developing genetic markers for several applications including marker-assisted breeding, population diversity studies for eco-geographical adaption, genotyping crop germplasm collections, and others. Accurately detecting SNPs from large polyploid crop genomes such as wheat is crucial and challenging. A few variant calling methods have been previously developed but they show a low concordance between their variant calls. A gold standard of variant sets generated from one human individual sample was established for variant calling tool evaluations, however hitherto no gold standard of crop variant set is available for wheat use. The intent of this study was to evaluate seven SNP variant calling tools (FreeBayes, GATK, Platypus, Samtools/mpileup, SNVer, VarScan, VarDict) with the two most popular mapping tools (BWA-mem and Bowtie2) on wheat whole exome capture (WEC) re-sequencing data from allohexaploid wheat.
resultsWe found the BWA-mem mapping tool had both a higher mapping rate and a higher accuracy rate than Bowtie2. With the same mapping quality (MQ) cutoff, BWA-mem detected more variant bases in mapping reads than Bowtie2. The reads preprocessed with quality trimming or duplicate removal did not significantly affect the final mapping performance in terms of mapped reads. Based on the concordance and receiver operating characteristic (ROC), the Samtools/mpileup variant calling tool with BWA-mem mapping of raw sequence reads outperformed other tests followed by FreeBayes and GATK in terms of specificity and sensitivity. VarDict and VarScan were the poorest performing variant calling tools with the wheat WEC sequence data.
conclusionThe BWA-mem and Samtools/mpileup pipeline, with no need to preprocess the raw read data before mapping onto the reference genome, was ascertained the optimum for SNP calling for the complex wheat genome re-sequencing. These results also provide useful guidelines for reliable variant identification from deep sequencing of other large polyploid crop genomes.
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.