ArticleScientific reports2025
Benchmarking UMI clustering tools for accurate detection of low-frequency variants from deep sequencing.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate detection of low-frequency variants utilizing next-generation sequencing (NGS) is of paramount importance in both biomedical research and clinical diagnosis. However, its analytical sensitivity is impeded by NGS's inherently high error rates. An efficient solution employs unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to tag individual DNA molecules before amplification to mitigate NGS errors. Nevertheless, UMIs are prone to collisions and amplification- or sequencing-induced errors, leading to the inaccurate clustering of UMI-tagged data. Multiple UMI clustering tools have been proposed to address these challenges; however, a systematic evaluation of their impact on low-frequency variant detection remains lacking. Here, we conducted a comprehensive benchmarking of eight UMI clustering tools-AmpUMI, Calib, CD-HIT, Du Novo, Rainbow, Starcode, UMICollapse, and UMI-Tools-utilizing simulated, reference, and sample datasets to evaluate their clustering efficiency, low-frequency variant detection accuracy, and computational performance. UMI utilization and read family counts are largely consistent across tools, while data loss differs markedly among clustering algorithms. The sensitivities of all tools, except AmpUMI, are influenced by both variant allele frequencies (VAFs) and sequencing depths. Conversely, the precisions and F1 scores of most tools-excluding AmpUMI, CD-HIT, and UMICollapse-exhibit a stronger dependence on sequencing depth as VAFs decreased. Furthermore, UMI clustering tools demonstrate a substantial reduction in false-positive (FP) calls across datasets. Concerning computational efficiency, AmpUMI achieves the fastest execution, Rainbow exhibits the lowest memory consumption, and Calib performs robustly in both aspects, particularly on small datasets. Overall, Calib exhibits the most balanced performance and is recommended for UMI clustering in low-frequency variant calling. These findings may provide valuable insights for improving variant detection and advancing the development of UMI clustering algorithms.
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.