↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of optimal alignments unfolds aligners’ bias in existing variant profiles

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analysis of optimal alignments unfolds aligners’ bias in existing variant profiles
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1216-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quang Tran, Shanshan Gao, Vinhthuy Phan

Abstract

Efforts such as International HapMap Project and 1000 Genomes Project resulted in a catalog of millions of single nucleotides and insertion/deletion (INDEL) variants of the human population. Viewed as a reference of existing variants, this resource commonly serves as a gold standard for studying and developing methods to detect genetic variants. Our analysis revealed that this reference contained thousands of INDELs that were constructed in a biased manner. This bias occurred at the level of aligning short reads to reference genomes to detect variants. The bias is caused by the existence of many theoretically optimal alignments between the reference genome and reads containing alternative alleles at those INDEL locations. We examined several popular aligners and showed that these aligners could be divided into groups whose alignments yielded INDELs that agreed strongly or disagreed strongly with reported INDELs. This finding suggests that the agreement or disagreement between the aligners' called INDEL and the reported INDEL is merely a result of the arbitrary selection of one of the optimal alignments. The existence of bias in INDEL calling might have a serious influence in downstream analyses. As such, our finding suggests that this phenomenon should be further addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 40%
Researcher 8 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Professor 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 37%
Computer Science 7 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,473,108
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,330
of 7,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,059
of 319,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#104
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,299 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.