Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35510784›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2022

Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent-offspring genotype mismatch.

Russ J Jasper, Tegan Krista McDonald, Pooja Singh, Mengmeng Lu, Clément Rougeux, Brandon M Lind, Sam Yeaman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Complete chloroplast genome sequence ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025
    Article
  4. Repeated global adaptation across plant species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Whole chloroplast genome sequence and phylogenetic analysis ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Russ J JasperDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4275-1155
Tegan Krista McDonaldDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7544-3987
Pooja SinghDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6576-400X
Mengmeng LuDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5023-3759
Clément RougeuxDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1776-5187
Brandon M LindCentre for Forest Conservation Genetics and Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8560-5417
Sam YeamanDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1706-8699
University of Calgary · CAUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Alberta Innovates 20150252NSERC Discovery RGPIN/03950-2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) data sets has increased dramatically over the last decade, but there have been few systematic analyses quantifying the accuracy of the commonly used variant caller programs. Here we used a familial design consisting of diploid tissue from a single lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) parent and the maternally derived haploid tissue from 106 full-sibling offspring, where mismatches could only arise due to mutation or bioinformatic error. Given the rarity of mutation, we used the rate of mismatches between parent and offspring genotype calls to infer the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping error rates of FreeBayes, HaplotypeCaller, SAMtools, UnifiedGenotyper, and VarScan. With baseline filtering HaplotypeCaller and UnifiedGenotyper yielded more SNPs and higher error rates by one to two orders of magnitude, whereas FreeBayes, SAMtools and VarScan yielded lower numbers of SNPs and more modest error rates. To facilitate comparison between variant callers we standardized each SNP set to the same number of SNPs using additional filtering, where UnifiedGenotyper consistently produced the smallest proportion of genotype errors, followed by HaplotypeCaller, VarScan, SAMtools, and FreeBayes. Additionally, we found that error rates were minimized for SNPs called by more than one variant caller. Finally, we evaluated the performance of various commonly used filtering metrics on SNP calling. Our analysis provides a quantitative assessment of the accuracy of five widely used variant calling programs and offers valuable insights into both the choice of variant caller program and the choice of filtering metrics, especially for researchers using non-model study systems.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPolymorphism, Single NucleotideComputational BiologyGenotypeMutationSoftwarebioinformaticsgenomicsgenotypingnext-generation sequencingnon-modelsingle nucleotide polymorphism

Identifiers

PMID35510784
PMCPMC9544674
OpenAlexW4229004150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.