Genome biologyBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Benchmarking of computational error-correction methods for next-generation sequencing data
Keith MitchelliD, Jaqueline BritoiD, Igor MandriciD, Qiaozhen Wu, Sergey KnyazeviD, Sei ChangiD, Lana S. MartiniD, Aaron Karlsberg, Ekaterina Sergeevna GerasimoviD, Russell LittmaniD, Brian L. HilliD, Nicholas C. WuiD, Harry Taegyun YangiD, Kevin HsiehiD, Linus Chen, Eli Littman, Taylor Shabani, German Enik, Douglas W. YaoiD, Ren SuniD, Jan SchröderiD, Eleazar EskiniD, Alex ZelikovskyiD, Pavel SkumsiD, Mihai PopiD, Serghei ManguliD
Abstract
BackgroundRecent advancements in next-generation sequencing have rapidly improved our ability to study genomic material at an unprecedented scale. Despite substantial improvements in sequencing technologies, errors present in the data still risk confounding downstream analysis and limiting the applicability of sequencing technologies in clinical tools. Computational error-correction promises to eliminate sequencing errors, but the relative accuracy of error correction algorithms remains unknown. ResultsIn this paper, we evaluate the ability of error-correction algorithms to fix errors across different types of datasets that contain various levels of heterogeneity. We highlight the advantages and limitations of computational error correction techniques across different domains of biology, including immunogenomics and virology. To demonstrate the efficacy of our technique, we apply the UMI-based high-fidelity sequencing protocol to eliminate sequencing errors from both simulated data and the raw reads. We then perform a realistic evaluation of error correction methods. ConclusionsIn terms of accuracy, we find that method performance varies substantially across different types of datasets with no single method performing best on all types of examined data. Finally, we also identify the techniques that offer a good balance between precision and sensitivity
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: statistical model
- approach: benchmark study
- Citations
- 55
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Field percentile
- top 6%
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
- A comprehensive evaluation of long read error correction methods
Haowen Zhang, Chirag Jain, Srinivas Aluru·BMC GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Dec 1, 2020
- How Error Correction Affects PCR Deduplication: A Survey Based on UMI Datasets of Short Reads
Pengyao Ping, Tian Lan, … Jinyan Li·bioRxiv·May 30, 2024
- Turn `noise' to signal: accurately rectify millions of erroneous short reads through graph learning on edit distances
Pengyao Ping, Shuquan Su, … Jinyan Li·bioRxiv·Apr 5, 2024
- BCAR: A fast and general barcode-sequence mapper for correcting sequencing errors
Bryan Andrews, Rama Ranganathan·bioRxiv·Mar 31, 2026
- Long-read error correction: a survey and qualitative comparison
Pierre Morisse, Thierry Lecroq B, Arnaud Lefebvre·bioRxiv·Mar 6, 2020
- ErrorX: automated error correction for immune repertoire sequencing datasets
Alexander M. Sevy·bioRxiv·Feb 17, 2020