ArticleHGG advances2022
Quality control of large genome datasets.
Article in HGG advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 1000 Genomes Project (TGP) is a foundational resource that serves the biomedical community as a standard reference cohort for human genetic variation. There are now seven public versions of these genomes. The TGP Consortium produced the first by mapping its final data release against human reference sequence GRCh37, then "lifted over" these genomes to the improved reference sequence (GRCh38) when it was released, and remapped the original data to GRCh38 with two similar pipelines. As best-practice quality validation, the pipelines that generated these versions were benchmarked against the Genome In A Bottle Consortium's "platinum quality" genome (NA12878). The New York Genome Center recently released the results of independently resequencing the cohort at greater depth (30×), a phased version informed by the inclusion of related individuals, and independently remapped the original variant calls to GRCh38. We performed a cross-comparison evaluation of all seven versions using genome fingerprinting, which supports ultrafast genome comparison even across reference versions. We noted multiple issues, including discrepancies in cohort membership, disagreement on the overall level of variation, evidence of substandard pipeline performance on specific genomes and in specific regions of the genome, cryptic relationships between individuals, inconsistent phasing, and annotation distortions caused by the history of the reference genome itself. We therefore recommend global quality assessment by rapid genome comparisons, alongside benchmarking as part of best-practice quality assessment of large genome datasets. Our observations also help inform the decision of which version to use, to support analyses by individual researchers.
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.