Cargando…

Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch

The use of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) data sets has increased dramatically over the last decade, but there have been few systematic analyses quantifying the accuracy of the commonly used variant caller programs. Here we used a familial design consisting of diploid tissue from a single lodgepol...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jasper, Russ J., McDonald, Tegan Krista, Singh, Pooja, Lu, Mengmeng, Rougeux, Clément, Lind, Brandon M., Yeaman, Sam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544674/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35510784
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13628
_version_ 1784804648929984512
author Jasper, Russ J.
McDonald, Tegan Krista
Singh, Pooja
Lu, Mengmeng
Rougeux, Clément
Lind, Brandon M.
Yeaman, Sam
author_facet Jasper, Russ J.
McDonald, Tegan Krista
Singh, Pooja
Lu, Mengmeng
Rougeux, Clément
Lind, Brandon M.
Yeaman, Sam
author_sort Jasper, Russ J.
collection PubMed
description The use of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) data sets has increased dramatically over the last decade, but there have been few systematic analyses quantifying the accuracy of the commonly used variant caller programs. Here we used a familial design consisting of diploid tissue from a single lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) parent and the maternally derived haploid tissue from 106 full‐sibling offspring, where mismatches could only arise due to mutation or bioinformatic error. Given the rarity of mutation, we used the rate of mismatches between parent and offspring genotype calls to infer the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping error rates of FreeBayes, HaplotypeCaller, SAMtools, UnifiedGenotyper, and VarScan. With baseline filtering HaplotypeCaller and UnifiedGenotyper yielded more SNPs and higher error rates by one to two orders of magnitude, whereas FreeBayes, SAMtools and VarScan yielded lower numbers of SNPs and more modest error rates. To facilitate comparison between variant callers we standardized each SNP set to the same number of SNPs using additional filtering, where UnifiedGenotyper consistently produced the smallest proportion of genotype errors, followed by HaplotypeCaller, VarScan, SAMtools, and FreeBayes. Additionally, we found that error rates were minimized for SNPs called by more than one variant caller. Finally, we evaluated the performance of various commonly used filtering metrics on SNP calling. Our analysis provides a quantitative assessment of the accuracy of five widely used variant calling programs and offers valuable insights into both the choice of variant caller program and the choice of filtering metrics, especially for researchers using non‐model study systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9544674
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95446742022-10-14 Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch Jasper, Russ J. McDonald, Tegan Krista Singh, Pooja Lu, Mengmeng Rougeux, Clément Lind, Brandon M. Yeaman, Sam Mol Ecol Resour RESOURCE ARTICLES The use of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) data sets has increased dramatically over the last decade, but there have been few systematic analyses quantifying the accuracy of the commonly used variant caller programs. Here we used a familial design consisting of diploid tissue from a single lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) parent and the maternally derived haploid tissue from 106 full‐sibling offspring, where mismatches could only arise due to mutation or bioinformatic error. Given the rarity of mutation, we used the rate of mismatches between parent and offspring genotype calls to infer the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping error rates of FreeBayes, HaplotypeCaller, SAMtools, UnifiedGenotyper, and VarScan. With baseline filtering HaplotypeCaller and UnifiedGenotyper yielded more SNPs and higher error rates by one to two orders of magnitude, whereas FreeBayes, SAMtools and VarScan yielded lower numbers of SNPs and more modest error rates. To facilitate comparison between variant callers we standardized each SNP set to the same number of SNPs using additional filtering, where UnifiedGenotyper consistently produced the smallest proportion of genotype errors, followed by HaplotypeCaller, VarScan, SAMtools, and FreeBayes. Additionally, we found that error rates were minimized for SNPs called by more than one variant caller. Finally, we evaluated the performance of various commonly used filtering metrics on SNP calling. Our analysis provides a quantitative assessment of the accuracy of five widely used variant calling programs and offers valuable insights into both the choice of variant caller program and the choice of filtering metrics, especially for researchers using non‐model study systems. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-22 2022-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9544674/ /pubmed/35510784 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13628 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Molecular Ecology Resources published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle RESOURCE ARTICLES
Jasper, Russ J.
McDonald, Tegan Krista
Singh, Pooja
Lu, Mengmeng
Rougeux, Clément
Lind, Brandon M.
Yeaman, Sam
Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch
title Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch
title_full Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch
title_fullStr Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch
title_short Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch
title_sort evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent‐offspring genotype mismatch
topic RESOURCE ARTICLES
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544674/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35510784
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13628
work_keys_str_mv AT jasperrussj evaluatingtheaccuracyofvariantcallingmethodsusingthefrequencyofparentoffspringgenotypemismatch
AT mcdonaldtegankrista evaluatingtheaccuracyofvariantcallingmethodsusingthefrequencyofparentoffspringgenotypemismatch
AT singhpooja evaluatingtheaccuracyofvariantcallingmethodsusingthefrequencyofparentoffspringgenotypemismatch
AT lumengmeng evaluatingtheaccuracyofvariantcallingmethodsusingthefrequencyofparentoffspringgenotypemismatch
AT rougeuxclement evaluatingtheaccuracyofvariantcallingmethodsusingthefrequencyofparentoffspringgenotypemismatch
AT lindbrandonm evaluatingtheaccuracyofvariantcallingmethodsusingthefrequencyofparentoffspringgenotypemismatch
AT yeamansam evaluatingtheaccuracyofvariantcallingmethodsusingthefrequencyofparentoffspringgenotypemismatch