2018
DOI: 10.1101/359109
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance Assessment of Variant Calling Pipelines using Human Whole Exome Sequencing and Simulated data

Abstract: The whole exome sequencing (WES) is a time-consuming technology in the identification of clinical variants and it demands the accurate variant caller tools. The currently available tools compromise accuracy in predicting the specific types of variants. Thus, it is important to find out the possible combination of best aligner-variant caller tools for detecting SNVs and InDels separately. Moreover, many important aspects of InDel detection are not overlooked while comparing the performance of tools. One such as… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
4
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Likewise, Stampy/SAMtools with 50 bp padding followed by BWA-MEM/GATK-UG with zero and 50 bp padding, BWA-MEM/SAMtools with 100 bp padding and BWA Enrichment application, were the top tier exonic SNV calling pipeline combinations. Our results, partly agree with previous data [ 3 , 4 ], supporting the finding that BWA-MEM/SAMtools pipeline showed the best performance for SNP calls. In contrast to what we present, Whang et al [ 3 ] showed that the variant caller has more influence than read aligner on SNP calling, whereas Kumaran et al [ 4 ] did not observe any significant changes in the top performing SNP calling pipelines.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Likewise, Stampy/SAMtools with 50 bp padding followed by BWA-MEM/GATK-UG with zero and 50 bp padding, BWA-MEM/SAMtools with 100 bp padding and BWA Enrichment application, were the top tier exonic SNV calling pipeline combinations. Our results, partly agree with previous data [ 3 , 4 ], supporting the finding that BWA-MEM/SAMtools pipeline showed the best performance for SNP calls. In contrast to what we present, Whang et al [ 3 ] showed that the variant caller has more influence than read aligner on SNP calling, whereas Kumaran et al [ 4 ] did not observe any significant changes in the top performing SNP calling pipelines.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Using Illumina HiSeq X ten platform, 6800 clinically relevant genes were captured with the preconstructed library to generate 150 bp paired-end reads at 100X sequencing depth. Post-sequencing data processing and variants filtration was performed using inhouse UNIX scripts [19]. The quality of the raw data in FASTQ file was checked and the bad reads were removed using Fast QC (version 0.11.5).…”
Section: Targeted Exome Sequencing (Tes)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…: SRR098401). We built a pipeline similar to prior work Kumaran et al . (2019) to detect variants using GATK HaplotypeCaller (v4.1.0) (DePristo et al .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%