ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of seven SNP calling pipelines for the next-generation sequencing data of chickens.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Effects of Different SNP Calling and Sequence Mapping Choices on the Inference of Genetic Architecture Underlying Migration Tendency.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Genome-wide association study bridging genomics-phenomics gap in natural plant populations.Journal of applied genetics · 2026Review
- Genetic diversity and association analysis of the growth hormone gene in local Indonesian chicken.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2025Article
- Benchmarking of low coverage sequencing workflows for precision genotyping in eggplant.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Genome-wide association studies unveil candidate genes linked with fruit fiber traits in Calotropis procera.Planta · 2025Article
- Article
- cascAGS: Comparative Analysis of SNP Calling Methods for Human Genome Data in the Absence of Gold Standard.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2025Article
- Red Deer Resequencing Reveals the Importance of Sex Chromosomes for Reconstructing Late Quaternary Events.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a minimal SNP genotyping panel for the differentiation of Cannabis sativa cultivars.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluating the performance of low-frequency variant calling tools for the detection of variants from short-read deep sequencing data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- ILIAD: a suite of automated Snakemake workflows for processing genomic data for downstream applications.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Kinetoplast Genome ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Fourth Report on Chicken Genes and Chromosomes 2022.Cytogenetic and genome research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are widely used in genome-wide association studies and population genetics analyses. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become convenient, and many SNP-calling pipelines have been developed for human NGS data. We took advantage of a gap knowledge in selecting the appropriated SNP calling pipeline to handle with high-throughput NGS data. To fill this gap, we studied and compared seven SNP calling pipelines, which include 16GT, genome analysis toolkit (GATK), Bcftools-single (Bcftools single sample mode), Bcftools-multiple (Bcftools multiple sample mode), VarScan2-single (VarScan2 single sample mode), VarScan2-multiple (VarScan2 multiple sample mode) and Freebayes pipelines, using 96 NGS data with the different depth gradients of approximately 5X, 10X, 20X, 30X, 40X, and 50X coverage from 16 Rhode Island Red chickens. The sixteen chickens were also genotyped with a 50K SNP array, and the sensitivity and specificity of each pipeline were assessed by comparison to the results of SNP arrays. For each pipeline, except Freebayes, the number of detected SNPs increased as the input read depth increased. In comparison with other pipelines, 16GT, followed by Bcftools-multiple, obtained the most SNPs when the input coverage exceeded 10X, and Bcftools-multiple obtained the most when the input was 5X and 10X. The sensitivity and specificity of each pipeline increased with increasing input. Bcftools-multiple had the highest sensitivity numerically when the input ranged from 5X to 30X, and 16GT showed the highest sensitivity when the input was 40X and 50X. Bcftools-multiple also had the highest specificity, followed by GATK, at almost all input levels. For most calling pipelines, there were no obvious changes in SNP numbers, sensitivities or specificities beyond 20X. In conclusion, (1) if only SNPs were detected, the sequencing depth did not need to exceed 20X; (2) the Bcftools-multiple may be the best choice for detecting SNPs from chicken NGS data, but for a single sample or sequencing depth greater than 20X, 16GT was recommended. Our findings provide a reference for researchers to select suitable pipelines to obtain SNPs from the NGS data of chickens or nonhuman animals.
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.