4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Steps to ensure accuracy in genotype and SNP calling from Illumina sequencing data

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-S8-S8

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA068485, P50 CA098131, P50 CA095103, P50 CA090949, U01 CA163056, CA137013, CA124558] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01GM088822, R01 GM088822] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Accurate calling of SNPs and genotypes from next-generation sequencing data is an essential prerequisite for most human genetics studies. A number of computational steps are required or recommended when translating the raw sequencing data into the final calls. However, whether each step does contribute to the performance of variant calling and how it affects the accuracy still remain unclear, making it difficult to select and arrange appropriate steps to derive high quality variants from different sequencing data. In this study, we made a systematic assessment of the relative contribution of each step to the accuracy of variant calling from Illumina DNA sequencing data. Results: We found that the read preprocessing step did not improve the accuracy of variant calling, contrary to the general expectation. Although trimming off low-quality tails helped align more reads, it introduced lots of false positives. The ability of markup duplication, local realignment and recalibration, to help eliminate false positive variants depended on the sequencing depth. Rearranging these steps did not affect the results. The relative performance of three popular multi-sample SNP callers, SAMtools, GATK, and GlfMultiples, also varied with the sequencing depth. Conclusions: Our findings clarify the necessity and effectiveness of computational steps for improving the accuracy of SNP and genotype calls from Illumina sequencing data and can serve as a general guideline for choosing SNP calling strategies for data with different coverage.

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