Genomic diversity affects the accuracy of bacterial SNP calling pipelines
Stephen J. BushiD, Dona Foster, David W. EyreiD, Emily L. ClarkiD, Nicola De MaioiD, Liam P. ShawiD, Nicole E StoesseriD, Tim PetoiD, Derrick W. CrookiD, Ann Sarah WalkeriD
Abstract
BackgroundAccurately identifying SNPs from bacterial sequencing data is an essential requirement for using genomics to track transmission and predict important phenotypes such as antimicrobial resistance. However, most previous performance evaluations of SNP calling have been restricted to eukaryotic (human) data. Additionally, bacterial SNP calling requires choosing an appropriate reference genome to align reads to, which, together with the bioinformatic pipeline, affects the accuracy and completeness of a set of SNP calls obtained.\n\nThis study evaluates the performance of 41 SNP calling pipelines using simulated data from 254 strains of 10 clinically common bacteria and real data from environmentally-sourced and genomically diverse isolates within the genera Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Escherichia and Klebsiella.\n\nResultsWe evaluated the performance of 41 SNP calling pipelines, aligning reads to genomes of the same or a divergent strain. Irrespective of pipeline, a principal determinant of reliable SNP calling was reference genome selection. Across multiple taxa, there was a strong inverse relationship between pipeline sensitivity and precision, and the Mash distance (a proxy for average nucleotide divergence) between reads and reference genome. The effect was especially pronounced for diverse, recombinogenic, bacteria such as Escherichia coli, but less dominant for clonal species such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis.\n\nConclusionsThe accuracy of SNP calling for a given species is compromised by increasing intra-species diversity. When reads were aligned to the same genome from which they were sequenced, among the highest performing pipelines was Novoalign/GATK. However, across the full range of (divergent) genomes, among the consistently highest-performing pipelines was Snippy.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 141
- FWCI
- 6.89
- Field percentile
- top 2%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
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
- Systematic benchmarking of all-in-one microbial SNP calling pipelines
Caitlin Falconer, Thom Cuddihy, … Brian M. Forde·bioRxiv·May 5, 2022
- Read trimming has minimal effect on bacterial SNP calling accuracy
Stephen J. Bush·Microbial GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Dec 1, 2020
- Exploring SNP Filtering Strategies: The Influence of Strict vs Soft Core
Mona L. Taouk, Leo A. Featherstone, … Ryan R. Wick·Microbial GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Jan 15, 2025
- The Northern Arizona SNP Pipeline (NASP): accurate, flexible, and rapid identification of SNPs in WGS datasets
Jason W Sahl, Darrin Lemmer, … Paul Keim·Microbial GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Aug 25, 2016
- One is not enough: on the effects of reference genome for the mapping and subsequent analyses of short-reads
Carlos Valiente-Mullor, Beatriz Beamud, … Fernando Gónzález‐Candelas·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Jan 27, 2021
- High-accuracy SNV calling for bacterial isolates using deep learning with AccuSNV
Herui Liao, Arolyn Conwill, … Tami D. Lieberman·Genome ResearchPeer-reviewed·Sep 1, 2026