ArticleScientific reports2022
SNP allele calling of Illumina Infinium Omni5-4 data using the butterfly method.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce a within-sample SNP calling method, called the "butterfly method", that improves the quality of SNP calling with the Illumina Infinium Omni5-4 SNP Kit. This was done by improving how no-calls are determined from allele signal intensities. High confidence of SNP allele calling is extremely important in forensic genetics and clinical diagnostics. This paper is accompanied by two open-source R packages, omni54manifest and snpbeadchip that make SNP calling easy by helping with bookkeeping and giving easy access to meta-information about the SNPs typed with the Illumina Infinium Omni5-4 Kit (including chromosome, probe type, and SNP bases). We compared the results from our method with those obtained with the Illumina GenomeStudio software (which does not provide sample and SNP specific genotype probabilities or other quality measures), and with whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Given the signal intensities, the SNP calling quality was optimised using a threshold for the a posteriori probability of a SNP belonging to a SNP cluster. By lowering the a posteriori probability threshold for no-calls, we obtained a higher call rate than GenomeStudio. Using a higher a posteriori probability threshold, we achieved a higher concordance with the WGS data than GenomeStudio. Our method had SNP call and concordance rates with WGS data of approximately 99%.
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.