ArticleViruses2024
Recommendations for Uniform Variant Calling of SARS-CoV-2 Genome Sequence across Bioinformatic Workflows.
Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of ultraviolet irradiation at 254 nm and 222 nm in inactivating human noroviruses on surfaces.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- EBV genome analysis in multiple sclerosis shows extensive viral diversity and links to autoimmunity.NAR molecular medicine · 2026Article
- How benchmarking of bioinformatics tools is essential for informed workflow selection: a case study on SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA detection.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- VIRUS-MVP: a framework for comprehensive surveillance of viral mutations and their functional impacts.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Short-Read and Long-Read Whole Genome Sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 Variants Identification.Viruses · 2025Article
- PathoSeq-QC: a decision support bioinformatics workflow for robust genomic surveillance.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
26 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic sequencing of clinical samples to identify emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 has been a key public health tool for curbing the spread of the virus. As a result, an unprecedented number of SARS-CoV-2 genomes were sequenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed for rapid identification of genetic variants, enabling the timely design and testing of therapies and deployment of new vaccine formulations to combat the new variants. However, despite the technological advances of deep sequencing, the analysis of the raw sequence data generated globally is neither standardized nor consistent, leading to vastly disparate sequences that may impact identification of variants. Here, we show that for both Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing platforms, downstream bioinformatic protocols used by industry, government, and academic groups resulted in different virus sequences from same sample. These bioinformatic workflows produced consensus genomes with differences in single nucleotide polymorphisms, inclusion and exclusion of insertions, and/or deletions, despite using the same raw sequence as input datasets. Here, we compared and characterized such discrepancies and propose a specific suite of parameters and protocols that should be adopted across the field. Consistent results from bioinformatic workflows are fundamental to SARS-CoV-2 and future pathogen surveillance efforts, including pandemic preparation, to allow for a data-driven and timely public health response.
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.