Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41420051›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Benchmarking UMI clustering tools for accurate detection of low-frequency variants from deep sequencing.

Dan Pu, Jie Li, Jiagen Li, Senbiao Qin, Xinyu Qiu, Ziqi Wang, Kunxian Shu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Dan PuChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, 400065, China. pudan@cqupt.edu.cn.
Jie LiChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, 400065, China.
Jiagen LiCollege of Communication and Information Engineering, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, 400065, China.
Senbiao QinChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, 400065, China.
Xinyu QiuChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, 400065, China.
Ziqi WangChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, 400065, China.
Kunxian ShuChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, 400065, China. shukx@cqupt.edu.cn.

Funding

Scientific and Technological Research Program of Chongqing Education Committee KIQN202300627
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic VariationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingAlgorithmsBenchmarkingCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyHumansSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareLow-frequency variantNext-generation sequencingUnique molecular identifier (UMI) clusteringVariant calling

Identifiers

PMID41420051
PMCPMC12830995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.