Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32807073›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020

Evaluation of variant calling tools for large plant genome re-sequencing.

Zhen Yao, Frank M You, Amidou N'Diaye, Ron E Knox, Curt McCartney, Colin W Hiebert, Curtis Pozniak, Wayne Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mapping QTL associated with resistance toFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhen YaoMorden Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 101 Route 100, Morden, Manitoba, R6M 1Y5, Canada.
Frank M YouOttawa Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, Canada.
Amidou N'DiayeDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A8, Canada.
Ron E KnoxSwift Current Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan, S9H 3X2, Canada.
Curt McCartneyMorden Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 101 Route 100, Morden, Manitoba, R6M 1Y5, Canada.
Colin W HiebertMorden Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 101 Route 100, Morden, Manitoba, R6M 1Y5, Canada.
Curtis PozniakDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A8, Canada.
Wayne XuMorden Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 101 Route 100, Morden, Manitoba, R6M 1Y5, Canada. wayne.xu@canada.ca.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada · CAUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genome, PlantArea Under CurveHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePolyploidyPrincipal Component AnalysisROC CurveSoftwareTriticumWhole Genome SequencingSequence mapping toolsTool evaluationVariant callingVariant calling toolsWheat exome capture sequences

Identifiers

PMID32807073
PMCPMC7430858
OpenAlexW3049762379

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.