Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37074153›Full record

ArticleMicrobial genomics2023

Evaluation of variant calling algorithms for wastewater-based epidemiology using mixed populations of SARS-CoV-2 variants in synthetic and wastewater samples.

Irene Bassano, Vinoy K Ramachandran, Mohammad S Khalifa, Chris J Lilley, Mathew R Brown, Ronny van Aerle, Hubert Denise, William Rowe, Airey George, Edward Cairns and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Establishing methods to monitor H5N1 influenza virus in dairy cattle milk.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

20 authors.

Irene BassanoAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
Vinoy K RamachandranAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
Mohammad S KhalifaAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
Chris J LilleyAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
Mathew R BrownSchool of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Ronny van AerleAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
Hubert DeniseAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
William RoweAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
Airey GeorgeCentre for Genomic Research and NERC Environmental Omics Facility, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences (IVES), University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK.
Edward CairnsCentre for Genomic Research and NERC Environmental Omics Facility, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences (IVES), University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK.
Claudia WierzbickiCentre for Genomic Research and NERC Environmental Omics Facility, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences (IVES), University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK.
Natalie D PickwellDeepSeq, Centre for Genetics and Genomics, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Matthew CarlileDeepSeq, Centre for Genetics and Genomics, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Nadine HolmesDeepSeq, Centre for Genetics and Genomics, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Alexander PayneDeepSeq, Centre for Genetics and Genomics, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Matthew LooseDeepSeq, Centre for Genetics and Genomics, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Terry A BurkeNERC Environmental Omics Facility, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.
Steve PatersonCentre for Genomic Research and NERC Environmental Omics Facility, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences (IVES), University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK.
Matthew J WadeAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.
Jasmine M S GrimsleyAnalytics & Data Science Directorate, UK Health Security Agency, London SW1P 3JR, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wastewater-based epidemiology has been used extensively throughout the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 19) pandemic to detect and monitor the spread and prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) and its variants. It has proven an excellent, complementary tool to clinical sequencing, supporting the insights gained and helping to make informed public-health decisions. Consequently, many groups globally have developed bioinformatics pipelines to analyse sequencing data from wastewater. Accurate calling of mutations is critical in this process and in the assignment of circulating variants; yet, to date, the performance of variant-calling algorithms in wastewater samples has not been investigated. To address this, we compared the performance of six variant callers (VarScan, iVar, GATK, FreeBayes, LoFreq and BCFtools), used widely in bioinformatics pipelines, on 19 synthetic samples with known ratios of three different SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) (Alpha, Beta and Delta), as well as 13 wastewater samples collected in London between the 15th and 18th December 2021. We used the fundamental parameters of recall (sensitivity) and precision (specificity) to confirm the presence of mutational profiles defining specific variants across the six variant callers. Our results show that BCFtools, FreeBayes and VarScan found the expected variants with higher precision and recall than GATK or iVar, although the latter identified more expected defining mutations than other callers. LoFreq gave the least reliable results due to the high number of false-positive mutations detected, resulting in lower precision. Similar results were obtained for both the synthetic and wastewater samples.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AlgorithmsHumansWastewaterWastewater-Based Epidemiological MonitoringWastewaterSARS-CoV-2sequencingvariant callersVOCwastewater

Identifiers

PMID37074153
PMCPMC10210938

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.