Scientific ReportsBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Comparison of calling pipelines for whole genome sequencing: an empirical study demonstrating the importance of mapping and alignment
Raphael O. BetschartiD, Alexandre Thiéry, Domingo Aguilera‐GarciaiD, Martin ZocheiD, Holger MochiD, Raphael TwerenboldiD, Tanja ZelleriD, Stefan BlankenbergiD, Andreas ZiegleriD
Abstract
Rapid advances in high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies have enabled the conduct of whole genome sequencing (WGS) studies, and several bioinformatics pipelines have become available. The aim of this study was the comparison of 6 WGS data pre-processing pipelines, involving two mapping and alignment approaches (GATK utilizing BWA-MEM2 2.2.1, and DRAGEN 3.8.4) and three variant calling pipelines (GATK 4.2.4.1, DRAGEN 3.8.4 and DeepVariant 1.1.0). We sequenced one genome in a bottle (GIAB) sample 70 times in different runs, and one GIAB trio in triplicate. The truth set of the GIABs was used for comparison, and performance was assessed by computation time, F1 score, precision, and recall. In the mapping and alignment step, the DRAGEN pipeline was faster than the GATK with BWA-MEM2 pipeline. DRAGEN showed systematically higher F1 score, precision, and recall values than GATK for single nucleotide variations (SNVs) and Indels in simple-to-map, complex-to-map, coding and non-coding regions. In the variant calling step, DRAGEN was fastest. In terms of accuracy, DRAGEN and DeepVariant performed similarly and both superior to GATK, with slight advantages for DRAGEN for Indels and for DeepVariant for SNVs. The DRAGEN pipeline showed the lowest Mendelian inheritance error fraction for the GIAB trios. Mapping and alignment played a key role in variant calling of WGS, with the DRAGEN outperforming GATK.
- organism: human
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- research focus: variant calling
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: variant effect prediction
- approach: statistical model
- approach: experimental assay
- Citations
- 46
- FWCI
- 2.69
- Field percentile
- top 8%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Accuracy and efficiency of germline variant calling pipelines for human genome data
Sen Zhao, Oleg Agafonov, … Eivind J. Hovig·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Nov 19, 2020
- Fast and accurate DNASeq Variant Calling workflow composed of LUSH toolkit
Taifu Wang, Youjin Zhang, … Zengquan He·Human GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Oct 10, 2024
- Comparison of three variant callers for human whole genome sequencing
Anna Maria Supernat, Oskar Valdimar Vidarsson, … Tomasz Stokowy·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Dec 10, 2018
- Systematic benchmark of state-of-the-art variant calling pipelines identifies major factors affecting accuracy of coding sequence variant discovery
Ruslan Abasov, Varvara E. Tvorogova, … Yury A. Barbitoff·BMC GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Feb 22, 2022
- Performance Assessment of Variant Calling Pipelines using Human Whole Exome Sequencing and Simulated data
Manojkumar Kumaran, Umadevi Subramanian, Bharanidharan Devarajan·BMC BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 17, 2019
- Variant calling pipelines for whole exome sequencing in clinical context
Johanna Stepanian, Diego Saldaña, … Jorge Diaz·medRxiv·Oct 18, 2024