ArticleSystematic biology2021
A Cautionary Note on the Use of Genotype Callers in Phylogenomics.
Article in Systematic biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Habitat Specialisation Impacts Clownfish Demographic Resilience to Pleistocene Sea-Level Fluctuations.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Global molecular epidemiology of the incomplete CirA protein related to cefiderocol resistance inMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Simulating Genetic Mixing in Strongly Structured Populations of the Threatened Southern Brown Bandicoot (Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Reference Genome Choice and Filtering Thresholds Jointly Influence Phylogenomic Analyses.Systematic biology · 2024Article
- Taking advantage of reference-guided assembly in a slowly-evolving lineage: Application to Testudo graeca.PloS one · 2024Article
- The impact of sequencing depth and relatedness of the reference genome in population genomic studies: A case study with two caddisfly species (Trichoptera, Rhyacophilidae,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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next-generation-sequencing genotype callers are commonly used in studies to call variants from newly sequenced species. However, due to the current availability of genomic resources, it is still common practice to use only one reference genome for a given genus, or even one reference for an entire clade of a higher taxon. The problem with traditional genotype callers, such as the one from GATK, is that they are optimized for variant calling at the population level. However, when these callers are used at the phylogenetic level, the consequences for downstream analyses can be substantial. Here, we performed simulations to compare the performance between the genotype callers of GATK and ATLAS, and present their differences at various phylogenetic scales. We show that the genotype caller of GATK substantially underestimates the number of variants at the phylogenetic level, but not at the population level. We also found that the accuracy of heterozygote calls declines with increasing distance to the reference genome. We quantified this decline and found that it is very sharp in GATK, while ATLAS maintains high accuracy even at moderately divergent species from the reference. We further suggest that efforts should be taken towards acquiring more reference genomes per species, before pursuing high-scale phylogenomic studies. [ATLAS; efficiency of SNP calling; GATK; heterozygote calling; next-generation sequencing; reference genome; variant calling.].
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.