2015
DOI: 10.1101/023754
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing Variant Call Files for Performance Benchmarking of Next-Generation Sequencing Variant Calling Pipelines

Abstract: To evaluate and compare the performance of variant calling methods and their confidence scores, comparisons between a test call set and a "gold standard" need to be carried out. Unfortunately, these comparisons are not straightforward with the current Variant Call Files (VCF), which are the standard output of most variant calling algorithms for high-throughput sequencing data. Comparisons of VCFs are often confounded by the different representations of indels, MNPs, and combinations thereof with SNVs in comple… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
177
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 192 publications
(177 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
(14 reference statements)
0
177
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, alignment and SNP calling to the BO5.10 mitochondrial and later the genomic reference sequence, that was published during our analyses (JA Kan Van et al 2017), was also conducted using the same methodologies. However, while individual SNP and indel statistics were determined from separate isolate specific vcfs using SnpEff (Cingolani et al 2012) for the pilot study, the statistics for these larger datasets were determined using VcfStats v1.2 (Lindenbaum 2015) and rtg-tools-3.8.3 (Cleary et al 2015) as a group. While SNPeff and VcfStats/rtgtools give the same total number of indels and SNPs for the isolates as a whole, individual indel numbers deviated from the pilot study.…”
Section: Polymorphism Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, alignment and SNP calling to the BO5.10 mitochondrial and later the genomic reference sequence, that was published during our analyses (JA Kan Van et al 2017), was also conducted using the same methodologies. However, while individual SNP and indel statistics were determined from separate isolate specific vcfs using SnpEff (Cingolani et al 2012) for the pilot study, the statistics for these larger datasets were determined using VcfStats v1.2 (Lindenbaum 2015) and rtg-tools-3.8.3 (Cleary et al 2015) as a group. While SNPeff and VcfStats/rtgtools give the same total number of indels and SNPs for the isolates as a whole, individual indel numbers deviated from the pilot study.…”
Section: Polymorphism Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The performance of algorithms was evaluated by means of the PT reference in software rtgtools[15] and vcfeval [16].…”
Section: Statistical Evaluation By Means Of the Pt Reference Mutationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We implemented the simulation based on the Real Time Genomics (RTG) simulation tool [32]. RTG provides a blueprint platform for genomic analysis.…”
Section: Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%