ArticlePloS one2020
A comparative study of single nucleotide variant detection performance using three massively parallel sequencing methods.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fifteen Years of the Genome Analysis Toolkit as the De Facto Standard in Short-Read Variant Calling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Application of SNV Detection Methods for Market Control of Food Products from New Genomic Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Genetic Insights into Peripheral Artery Disease: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- NGS Approaches in Clinical Diagnostics: From Workflow to Disease-Specific Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A rare Coffin-Siris syndrome induced by SOX11: a de novo nonsense variant of short stature.BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Whole-genome sequencing identifies new candidate genes for nonobstructive azoospermia.Andrology · 2022Article
- SNP allele calling of Illumina Infinium Omni5-4 data using the butterfly method.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Differential Methylation in theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) has revolutionised clinical genetics and research within human genetics by enabling the detection of variants in multiple genes in several samples at the same time. Today, multiple approaches for MPS of DNA are available, including targeted gene sequencing (TGS) panels, whole exome sequencing (WES), and whole genome sequencing (WGS). As MPS is becoming an integrated part of the work in genetic laboratories, it is important to investigate the variant detection performance of the various MPS methods. We compared the results of single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection of three MPS methods: WGS, WES, and HaloPlex target enrichment sequencing (HES) using matched DNA of 10 individuals. The detection performance was investigated in 100 genes associated with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies. The results showed that WGS overall performed better than those of WES and HES. WGS had a more uniform and widespread coverage of the investigated regions compared to WES and HES, which both had a right-skewed coverage distribution and difficulties in covering regions and genes with high GC-content. WGS and WES showed roughly the same high sensitivities for detection of SNVs, whereas HES showed a lower sensitivity due to a higher number of false negative results.
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.