henhaobio
Sign in

Scientific ReportsGenomicsPeer-reviewed journal article

A benchmarking of human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup classifiers from whole-genome and whole-exome sequence data

Víctor García‐OlivaresiD, Adrián Muñoz‐BarreraiD, Jose Miguel Lorenzo-SalazariD, Carlos Zaragoza‐TrelloiD, Luis A. Rubio‐RodrígueziD, Ana Díaz-de UseraiD, David JáspeziD, Antonio Íñigo-CamposiD, Rafaela González‐MontelongoiD, Carlos FloresiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

The mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) is of interest for a range of fields including evolutionary, forensic, and medical genetics. Human mitogenomes can be classified into evolutionary related haplogroups that provide ancestral information and pedigree relationships. Because of this and the advent of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technology, there is a diversity of bioinformatic tools for haplogroup classification. We present a benchmarking of the 11 most salient tools for human mtDNA classification using empirical whole-genome (WGS) and whole-exome (WES) short-read sequencing data from 36 unrelated donors. Besides, because of its relevance, we also assess the best performing tool in third-generation long noisy read WGS data obtained with nanopore technology for a subset of the donors. We found that, for short-read WGS, most of the tools exhibit high accuracy for haplogroup classification irrespective of the input file used for the analysis. However, for short-read WES, Haplocheck and MixEmt were the most accurate tools. Based on the performance shown for WGS and WES, and the accompanying qualitative assessment, Haplocheck stands out as the most complete tool. For third-generation HTS data, we also showed that Haplocheck was able to accurately retrieve mtDNA haplogroups for all samples assessed, although only after following assembly-based approaches (either based on a referenced-based assembly or a hybrid de novo assembly). Taken together, our results provide guidance for researchers to select the most suitable tool to conduct the mtDNA analyses from HTS data.

Citations
10
FWCI
0.71
Field percentile
top 35%

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.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISRubin '23Kim '20García‐Oliv '22Weißenstein '21Bajić '24Su '26
70% semantic matchBioinformatics
Joshua Daniel Rubin, Nicola Alexandra Vogel, Shyam Gopalakrishnan+2 more·PLoS Computational Biology·Jun 7, 2023· 27 citations