Cargando…

Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error

BACKGROUND: The influences that different programs and conditions have on error rates of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analyses are poorly understood. Using Illumina short-read sequence data generated from Listeria monocytogenes strain HPB5622, we assessed the performance of four SNP callers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pightling, Arthur W., Petronella, Nicholas, Pagotto, Franco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4672502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26643440
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1689-4
_version_ 1782404580490870784
author Pightling, Arthur W.
Petronella, Nicholas
Pagotto, Franco
author_facet Pightling, Arthur W.
Petronella, Nicholas
Pagotto, Franco
author_sort Pightling, Arthur W.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The influences that different programs and conditions have on error rates of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analyses are poorly understood. Using Illumina short-read sequence data generated from Listeria monocytogenes strain HPB5622, we assessed the performance of four SNP callers (BCFtools, FreeBayes, UnifiedGenotyper, VarScan) under a variety of conditions, including: (1) a range of sequencing coverages; (2) use of four popular reference-guided assemblers (Burrows-Wheeler Aligner, Novoalign, MOSAIK, SMALT); (3) with and without read quality trimming and filtering; and (4) use of different reference sequences. RESULTS: At 8-fold coverage the proportions of true positive calls ranged from 0.22 to 25.00 % when reads were aligned to a nearly identical reference (0.000096 % distant). Calls made when reads were aligned to a non-identical reference (0.85 % distant) were from 92.54 to 98.88 % accurate. At 79-fold coverage accuracies ranged from 3.95 to 20.00 % with the nearly identical reference and 93.80–98.75 % with the non-identical reference. Read preprocessing significantly changed the numbers of false positive calls made, from a 65.24 % decrease to a 54.55 % increase. CONCLUSIONS: The combinations of reference-guided sequence assemblers and SNP callers greatly influenced not only the numbers of true and false positive sites but also the proportions of true positive calls relative to the total numbers of calls made. Furthermore, the efficacy of different assembler and caller combinations changed dramatically with the different conditions tested. Researchers should consider whether identifying the greatest numbers of true positive sites, reducing the numbers of false positive calls, or achieving the highest accuracies are desired. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1689-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4672502
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46725022015-12-09 Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error Pightling, Arthur W. Petronella, Nicholas Pagotto, Franco BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: The influences that different programs and conditions have on error rates of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analyses are poorly understood. Using Illumina short-read sequence data generated from Listeria monocytogenes strain HPB5622, we assessed the performance of four SNP callers (BCFtools, FreeBayes, UnifiedGenotyper, VarScan) under a variety of conditions, including: (1) a range of sequencing coverages; (2) use of four popular reference-guided assemblers (Burrows-Wheeler Aligner, Novoalign, MOSAIK, SMALT); (3) with and without read quality trimming and filtering; and (4) use of different reference sequences. RESULTS: At 8-fold coverage the proportions of true positive calls ranged from 0.22 to 25.00 % when reads were aligned to a nearly identical reference (0.000096 % distant). Calls made when reads were aligned to a non-identical reference (0.85 % distant) were from 92.54 to 98.88 % accurate. At 79-fold coverage accuracies ranged from 3.95 to 20.00 % with the nearly identical reference and 93.80–98.75 % with the non-identical reference. Read preprocessing significantly changed the numbers of false positive calls made, from a 65.24 % decrease to a 54.55 % increase. CONCLUSIONS: The combinations of reference-guided sequence assemblers and SNP callers greatly influenced not only the numbers of true and false positive sites but also the proportions of true positive calls relative to the total numbers of calls made. Furthermore, the efficacy of different assembler and caller combinations changed dramatically with the different conditions tested. Researchers should consider whether identifying the greatest numbers of true positive sites, reducing the numbers of false positive calls, or achieving the highest accuracies are desired. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1689-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4672502/ /pubmed/26643440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1689-4 Text en © Pightling et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pightling, Arthur W.
Petronella, Nicholas
Pagotto, Franco
Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error
title Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error
title_full Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error
title_fullStr Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error
title_full_unstemmed Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error
title_short Choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and SNP caller for analysis of Listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error
title_sort choice of reference-guided sequence assembler and snp caller for analysis of listeria monocytogenes short-read sequence data greatly influences rates of error
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4672502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26643440
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1689-4
work_keys_str_mv AT pightlingarthurw choiceofreferenceguidedsequenceassemblerandsnpcallerforanalysisoflisteriamonocytogenesshortreadsequencedatagreatlyinfluencesratesoferror
AT petronellanicholas choiceofreferenceguidedsequenceassemblerandsnpcallerforanalysisoflisteriamonocytogenesshortreadsequencedatagreatlyinfluencesratesoferror
AT pagottofranco choiceofreferenceguidedsequenceassemblerandsnpcallerforanalysisoflisteriamonocytogenesshortreadsequencedatagreatlyinfluencesratesoferror