Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34627144›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021

Comparison of sequencing data processing pipelines and application to underrepresented African human populations.

Gwenna Breton, Anna C V Johansson, Per Sjödin, Carina M Schlebusch, Mattias Jakobsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Gwenna BretonHuman Evolution, Department of Organismal Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18C, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden. gwenna.breton@ebc.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4100-9963
Anna C V JohanssonDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Husargatan 3, 752 37, Uppsala, Sweden.
Per SjödinHuman Evolution, Department of Organismal Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18C, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden.
Carina M SchlebuschHuman Evolution, Department of Organismal Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18C, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mattias JakobssonHuman Evolution, Department of Organismal Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18C, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden. mattias.jakobsson@ebc.uu.se.

Funding

European Research Council ERC 759933Vetenskapsrådet 2018-05537Vetenskapsrådet 621-2014-5211Vetenskapsrådet 642-2013-8019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation genetic studies of humans make increasing use of high-throughput sequencing in order to capture diversity in an unbiased way. There is an abundance of sequencing technologies, bioinformatic tools and the available genomes are increasing in number. Studies have evaluated and compared some of these technologies and tools, such as the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) and its "Best Practices" bioinformatic pipelines. However, studies often focus on a few genomes of Eurasian origin in order to detect technical issues. We instead surveyed the use of the GATK tools and established a pipeline for processing high coverage full genomes from a diverse set of populations, including Sub-Saharan African groups, in order to reveal challenges from human diversity and stratification.

resultsWe surveyed 29 studies using high-throughput sequencing data, and compared their strategies for data pre-processing and variant calling. We found that processing of data is very variable across studies and that the GATK "Best Practices" are seldom followed strictly. We then compared three versions of a GATK pipeline, differing in the inclusion of an indel realignment step and with a modification of the base quality score recalibration step. We applied the pipelines on a diverse set of 28 individuals. We compared the pipelines in terms of count of called variants and overlap of the callsets. We found that the pipelines resulted in similar callsets, in particular after callset filtering. We also ran one of the pipelines on a larger dataset of 179 individuals. We noted that including more individuals at the joint genotyping step resulted in different counts of variants. At the individual level, we observed that the average genome coverage was correlated to the number of variants called.

conclusionsWe conclude that applying the GATK "Best Practices" pipeline, including their recommended reference datasets, to underrepresented populations does not lead to a decrease in the number of called variants compared to alternative pipelines. We recommend to aim for coverage of > 30X if identifying most variants is important, and to work with large sample sizes at the variant calling stage, also for underrepresented individuals and populations.

Indexed as

GenomePolymorphism, Single NucleotideComputational BiologyHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansINDEL MutationComparison of pipelinesGenome Analysis Toolkit (GATK)High coverage genomesHigh-throughput sequencing (HTS)Next generation sequencing (NGS)Underrepresented ancestry

Identifiers

PMID34627144
PMCPMC8502359

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.