ArticleBMC genomics2023
A pipeline for sample tagging of whole genome bisulfite sequencing data using genotypes of whole genome sequencing.
Article in BMC genomics, 2023. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn large-scale high-throughput sequencing projects and biobank construction, sample tagging is essential to prevent sample mix-ups. Despite the availability of fingerprint panels for DNA data, little research has been conducted on sample tagging of whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) data. This study aims to construct a pipeline and identify applicable fingerprint panels to address this problem.
resultsUsing autosome-wide A/T polymorphic single nucleotide variants (SNVs) obtained from whole genome sequencing (WGS) and WGBS of individuals from the Third China National Stroke Registry, we designed a fingerprint panel and constructed an optimized pipeline for tagging WGBS data. This pipeline used Bis-SNP to call genotypes from the WGBS data, and optimized genotype comparison by eliminating wildtype homozygous and missing genotypes, and retaining variants with identical genomic coordinates and reference/alternative alleles. WGS-based and WGBS-based genotypes called from identical or different samples were extensively compared using hap.py. In the first batch of 94 samples, the genotype consistency rates were between 71.01%-84.23% and 51.43%-60.50% for the matched and mismatched WGS and WGBS data using the autosome-wide A/T polymorphic SNV panel. This capability to tag WGBS data was validated among the second batch of 240 samples, with genotype consistency rates ranging from 70.61%-84.65% to 49.58%-61.42% for the matched and mismatched data, respectively. We also determined that the number of genetic variants required to correctly tag WGBS data was on the order of thousands through testing six fingerprint panels with different orders for the number of variants. Additionally, we affirmed this result with two self-designed panels of 1351 and 1278 SNVs, respectively. Furthermore, this study confirmed that using the number of genetic variants with identical coordinates and ref/alt alleles, or identical genotypes could not correctly tag WGBS data.
conclusionThis study proposed an optimized pipeline, applicable fingerprint panels, and a lower boundary for the number of fingerprint genetic variants needed for correct sample tagging of WGBS data, which are valuable for tagging WGBS data and integrating multi-omics data for biobanks.
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.