↓ Skip to main content

Positional bias in variant calls against draft reference assemblies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
35 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Positional bias in variant calls against draft reference assemblies
Published in
BMC Genomics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3637-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roman V. Briskine, Kentaro K. Shimizu

Abstract

Whole genome resequencing projects may implement variant calling using draft reference genomes assembled de novo from short-read libraries. Despite lower quality of such assemblies, they allowed researchers to extend a wide range of population genetic and genome-wide association analyses to non-model species. As the variant calling pipelines are complex and involve many software packages, it is important to understand inherent biases and limitations at each step of the analysis. In this article, we report a positional bias present in variant calling performed against draft reference assemblies constructed from de Bruijn or string overlap graphs. We assessed how frequently variants appeared at each position counted from ends of a contig or scaffold sequence, and discovered unexpectedly high number of variants at the positions related to the length of either k-mers or reads used for the assembly. We detected the bias in both publicly available draft assemblies from Assemblathon 2 competition as well as in the assemblies we generated from our simulated short-read data. Simulations confirmed that the bias causing variants are predominantly false positives induced by reads from spatially distant repeated sequences. The bias is particularly strong in contig assemblies. Scaffolding does not eliminate the bias but tends to mitigate it because of the changes in variants' relative positions and alterations in read alignments. The bias can be effectively reduced by filtering out the variants that reside in repetitive elements. Draft genome sequences generated by several popular assemblers appear to be susceptible to the positional bias potentially affecting many resequencing projects in non-model species. The bias is inherent to the assembly algorithms and arises from their particular handling of repeated sequences. It is recommended to reduce the bias by filtering especially if higher-quality genome assembly cannot be achieved. Our findings can help other researchers to improve the quality of their variant data sets and reduce artefactual findings in downstream analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 30%
Computer Science 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,297,091
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#228
of 11,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,839
of 313,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#11
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,058 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 313,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.