2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.07.15.452444
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variant calling tool evaluation for variable size indel calling from next generation whole genome and targeted sequencing data

Abstract: Insertions and deletions (indels) in human genomes are associated with a wide range of phenotypes, including various clinical disorders. High-throughput, next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies enable detection of short genetic variants, such as single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels. However, the variant calling accuracy for indels remains considerably lower than for SNVs. Here we present a comparative study of the performance of variant calling tools on indel calling, evaluated with a wide repert… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
(87 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The true dominance of Delta-ORF7a Δ17del genomes in Australia could also be underestimated in this study since the dataset includes travellers who returned to Australia (who more likely lacked the mutation that was characteristic of the Australian cases) and genomes with potentially incomplete ORF7a sequences (i.e., those potentially lacking coverage at some or all positions 27,607–27,623). Additionally, variant calling software can have difficulties with correctly calling insertion/deletions (indels) [ 25 ], and GISAID does not release submissions that contain a frameshift mutation by default (unless it is specifically requested). Finally, the ongoing transmission of Delta-ORF7a Δ17del occurred despite the cocirculation of a virus that would be presumably more “fit” (Delta-ORF7a intact ) because truncation of the ORF7a C-terminus which leads to a loss of the transmembrane domain has been associated with decreased viral fitness in some (but not all) studies by negating the anti-immune properties of the protein [ 26 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The true dominance of Delta-ORF7a Δ17del genomes in Australia could also be underestimated in this study since the dataset includes travellers who returned to Australia (who more likely lacked the mutation that was characteristic of the Australian cases) and genomes with potentially incomplete ORF7a sequences (i.e., those potentially lacking coverage at some or all positions 27,607–27,623). Additionally, variant calling software can have difficulties with correctly calling insertion/deletions (indels) [ 25 ], and GISAID does not release submissions that contain a frameshift mutation by default (unless it is specifically requested). Finally, the ongoing transmission of Delta-ORF7a Δ17del occurred despite the cocirculation of a virus that would be presumably more “fit” (Delta-ORF7a intact ) because truncation of the ORF7a C-terminus which leads to a loss of the transmembrane domain has been associated with decreased viral fitness in some (but not all) studies by negating the anti-immune properties of the protein [ 26 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The true dominance of Delta-ORF7a Δ17del genomes in Australia could even be underestimated here since the data set includes returned travellers to Australia (more likely to lack the mutation characteristic of Australian cases), and genomes with potentially incomplete ORF7a sequences (i.e., those potentially lacking coverage at some or all of positions 27607–27623). Additionally, variant calling software can have difficulties with correctly calling insertion/deletions (indels) (14), and by default GISAID does not release submissions that contain a frameshift mutation (unless specifically requested). Finally, the ongoing transmission of Delta-ORF7a Δ17del occurred despite cocirculation of presumably a more “fit” virus (Delta-ORF7a intact ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%