4.7 Review

Variant calling and benchmarking in an era of complete human genome sequences

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 464-483

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41576-023-00590-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic variant calling from DNA sequencing has enabled understanding of germline variation in hundreds of thousands of humans. Advances in long reads, deep learning, de novo assembly, and pangenomes have expanded access to variant calls in challenging genomic regions. Benchmarking strategies are important to assess the robustness of variant-calling strategies.
Genetic variant calling from DNA sequencing has enabled understanding of germline variation in hundreds of thousands of humans. Sequencing technologies and variant-calling methods have advanced rapidly, routinely providing reliable variant calls in most of the human genome. We describe how advances in long reads, deep learning, de novo assembly and pangenomes have expanded access to variant calls in increasingly challenging, repetitive genomic regions, including medically relevant regions, and how new benchmark sets and benchmarking methods illuminate their strengths and limitations. Finally, we explore the possible future of more complete characterization of human genome variation in light of the recent completion of a telomere-to-telomere human genome reference assembly and human pangenomes, and we consider the innovations needed to benchmark their newly accessible repetitive regions and complex variants. Variant calling is the process of identifying genetic variants, which is important for characterizing population genetic diversity and for identifying disease-associated variants in clinical sequencing projects. In this Review, the authors discuss the state-of-the-art in variant calling, focusing on challenging types of genetic variants, advances in both sequencing technologies and computational pipelines, and benchmarking strategies to assess the robustness of variant-calling strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据