Cargando…
Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data
High-throughput sequencing technologies have rapidly developed during the past years and have become an essential tool in plant sciences. However, the analysis of genomic data remains challenging and relies mostly on the performance of automatic pipelines. Frequently applied pipelines involve the al...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7238416/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32252268 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants9040439 |
_version_ | 1783536533619343360 |
---|---|
author | Schilbert, Hanna Marie Rempel, Andreas Pucker, Boas |
author_facet | Schilbert, Hanna Marie Rempel, Andreas Pucker, Boas |
author_sort | Schilbert, Hanna Marie |
collection | PubMed |
description | High-throughput sequencing technologies have rapidly developed during the past years and have become an essential tool in plant sciences. However, the analysis of genomic data remains challenging and relies mostly on the performance of automatic pipelines. Frequently applied pipelines involve the alignment of sequence reads against a reference sequence and the identification of sequence variants. Since most benchmarking studies of bioinformatics tools for this purpose have been conducted on human datasets, there is a lack of benchmarking studies in plant sciences. In this study, we evaluated the performance of 50 different variant calling pipelines, including five read mappers and ten variant callers, on six real plant datasets of the model organism Arabidopsis thaliana. Sets of variants were evaluated based on various parameters including sensitivity and specificity. We found that all investigated tools are suitable for analysis of NGS data in plant research. When looking at different performance metrics, BWA-MEM and Novoalign were the best mappers and GATK returned the best results in the variant calling step. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7238416 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72384162020-06-02 Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data Schilbert, Hanna Marie Rempel, Andreas Pucker, Boas Plants (Basel) Article High-throughput sequencing technologies have rapidly developed during the past years and have become an essential tool in plant sciences. However, the analysis of genomic data remains challenging and relies mostly on the performance of automatic pipelines. Frequently applied pipelines involve the alignment of sequence reads against a reference sequence and the identification of sequence variants. Since most benchmarking studies of bioinformatics tools for this purpose have been conducted on human datasets, there is a lack of benchmarking studies in plant sciences. In this study, we evaluated the performance of 50 different variant calling pipelines, including five read mappers and ten variant callers, on six real plant datasets of the model organism Arabidopsis thaliana. Sets of variants were evaluated based on various parameters including sensitivity and specificity. We found that all investigated tools are suitable for analysis of NGS data in plant research. When looking at different performance metrics, BWA-MEM and Novoalign were the best mappers and GATK returned the best results in the variant calling step. MDPI 2020-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7238416/ /pubmed/32252268 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants9040439 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Schilbert, Hanna Marie Rempel, Andreas Pucker, Boas Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data |
title | Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data |
title_full | Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data |
title_short | Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data |
title_sort | comparison of read mapping and variant calling tools for the analysis of plant ngs data |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7238416/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32252268 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants9040439 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schilberthannamarie comparisonofreadmappingandvariantcallingtoolsfortheanalysisofplantngsdata AT rempelandreas comparisonofreadmappingandvariantcallingtoolsfortheanalysisofplantngsdata AT puckerboas comparisonofreadmappingandvariantcallingtoolsfortheanalysisofplantngsdata |