ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Systematic evaluation of de novo mutation calling tools using whole genome sequencing data.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
De novo mutations (DNMs) are genetic alterations that occur for the first time in an offspring. DNMs have been found to be a significant cause of severe developmental disorders. With the widespread use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, accurate detection of DNMs is crucial. Several bioinformatics tools have been developed to call DNMs from NGS data, but no study to date has systematically compared these tools. We used both real whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from a trio from the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G) and an in-house simulated trio dataset to evaluate five DNM calling tools: DeNovoGear, TrioDeNovo, PhaseByTransmission, VarScan 2, and DeNovoCNN. For DNMs called in the real dataset, we observed 8.4% concordance of variants between all tools, while 83.8% of DNMs variants were identified by only one caller. For simulated trio WGS dataset spiked with 100 DNMs, the concordance rate was also low at 3.9%. DeNovoGear achieved the highest F1 score on the real 1000G dataset, while DeNovoCNN had the highest F1 score on the simulated data. Our study provides valuable recommendations for the selection and application of DNM callers on WGS trio data.
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.