ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
A portable recalibration workflow for reference-based variant calling in non-human genomes.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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
A key computational step in reference-based variant calling is distinguishing true genetic variants from sequencing errors. Advanced tools and workflows have been developed to handle this by computational modelling of technical errors from the sequencing machines. However, these recalibration workflows have largely been evaluated for human data only and its exact applicability for non-human data remains unknown. Here, we conducted a systematic evaluation of variant calling on human, rice, sheep, and chickpea data, and found that existing workflows introduce unexpected statistical bias, thus leading to suboptimal variant calls for non-human data. To address this problem, we present simple guidelines for constructing a "pseudo-"database (pseudoDB) of genetic variants as a scalable and portable solution for recalibration and variant calling. With human data, our pseudoDB-based workflow performs comparably to existing dbSNP-based GATK3 workflows and those using DeepVariant, Strelka2, and FreeBayes. We extend this to other non-human genomes, namely cattle, brown bear, swan goose, African oil palm, Komodo dragon, and stevia, altogether resulting in the identification of up to 242.0% unique genetic variants. The majority of newly identified variants are within the non-coding regions, hinting at the rich diversity of genome regulation in the non-human population. Our pseudoDB-based workflow is agnostic to reference genomes and modular for easy integration with other computational workflows for human and non-human resequencing 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.