Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34020538›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2021

Evaluating assembly and variant calling software for strain-resolved analysis of large DNA viruses.

Zhi-Luo Deng, Akshay Dhingra, Adrian Fritz, Jasper Götting, Philipp C Münch, Lars Steinbrück, Thomas F Schulz, Tina Ganzenmüller, Alice C McHardy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. WTAP-mediated mHuman cell · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Is the reductionist paradox an Achilles Heel of drug discovery?Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhi-Luo DengDepartment Computational Biology of Infection Research of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research.
Akshay DhingraInstitute of Virology in Hannover Medical School.
Adrian FritzDepartment Computational Biology of Infection Research of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research.
Jasper GöttingInstitute of Virology in Hannover Medical School.
Philipp C MünchDepartment Computational Biology of Infection Research of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research and Max von Pettenkofer Institute in Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.
Lars SteinbrückInstitute of Virology in Hannover Medical School.
Thomas F SchulzInstitute of Virology in Hannover Medical School.
Tina GanzenmüllerInstitute of Virology in Hannover Medical School.
Alice C McHardyDepartment Computational Biology of Infection Research of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEInstitute of Virology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences · SKLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infection with human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) can cause severe complications in immunocompromised individuals and congenitally infected children. Characterizing heterogeneous viral populations and their evolution by high-throughput sequencing of clinical specimens requires the accurate assembly of individual strains or sequence variants and suitable variant calling methods. However, the performance of most methods has not been assessed for populations composed of low divergent viral strains with large genomes, such as HCMV. In an extensive benchmarking study, we evaluated 15 assemblers and 6 variant callers on 10 lab-generated benchmark data sets created with two different library preparation protocols, to identify best practices and challenges for analyzing such data. Most assemblers, especially metaSPAdes and IVA, performed well across a range of metrics in recovering abundant strains. However, only one, Savage, recovered low abundant strains and in a highly fragmented manner. Two variant callers, LoFreq and VarScan2, excelled across all strain abundances. Both shared a large fraction of false positive variant calls, which were strongly enriched in T to G changes in a 'G.G' context. The magnitude of this context-dependent systematic error is linked to the experimental protocol. We provide all benchmarking data, results and the entire benchmarking workflow named QuasiModo, Quasispecies Metric determination on omics, under the GNU General Public License v3.0 (https://github.com/hzi-bifo/Quasimodo), to enable full reproducibility and further benchmarking on these and other data.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationGenome, ViralSoftwareCytomegalovirusHumansbenchmarkgenome assemblyHCMVstrain mixturesvariant callingvirus

Identifiers

PMID34020538
PMCPMC8138829
OpenAlexW3040739570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.