Comparison of read mapping and variant calling tools for the analysis of plant NGS data
bioRxiv, ISSN: 2692-8205
2020
- 9Citations
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef9
Article Description
High-throughput sequencing technologies have rapidly developed during the past years and became an essential tool in plant sciences. However, the analysis of genomic data remains challenging and relies mostly on the performance of automatic pipelines. Frequently applied pipelines involve the alignment of sequence reads against a reference sequence and the identification of sequence variants. Since most benchmarking studies of bioinformatics tools for this purpose have been conducted on human datasets, there is a lack of benchmarking studies in plant sciences. In this study, we evaluated the performance of 50 different variant calling pipelines, including five read mappers and ten variant callers, on six real plant datasets of the model organism Arabidopsis thaliana. Sets of variants were evaluated based on various parameters including sensitivity and specificity. We found that all investigated tools are suitable for analysis of NGS data in plant research. When looking at different performance metrices, BWA-MEM and Novoalign were the best mappers and GATK returned the best results in the variant calling step.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85098808686&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.10.986059; https://rescognito.com/dac/10.1101/2020.03.10.986059; http://dx.doi.org/10.37473/dac/10.1101/2020.03.10.986059; https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.10.986059; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.10.986059v2
Rescognito, Inc.
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know