↓ Skip to main content

A study on fast calling variants from next-generation sequencing data using decision tree

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
A study on fast calling variants from next-generation sequencing data using decision tree
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2147-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhentang Li, Yi Wang, Fei Wang

Abstract

The rapid development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has continuously been refreshing the throughput of sequencing data. However, due to the lack of a smart tool that is both fast and accurate, the analysis task for NGS data, especially those with low-coverage, remains challenging. We proposed a decision-tree based variant calling algorithm. Experiments on a set of real data indicate that our algorithm achieves high accuracy and sensitivity for SNVs and indels and shows good adaptability on low-coverage data. In particular, our algorithm is obviously faster than 3 widely used tools in our experiments. We implemented our algorithm in a software named Fuwa and applied it together with 4 well-known variant callers, i.e., Platypus, GATK-UnifiedGenotyper, GATK-HaplotypeCaller and SAMtools, to three sequencing data sets of a well-studied sample NA12878, which were produced by whole-genome, whole-exome and low-coverage whole-genome sequencing technology respectively. We also conducted additional experiments on the WGS data of 4 newly released samples that have not been used to populate dbSNP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 32%
Engineering 5 9%
Computer Science 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,104,945
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,503
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,313
of 327,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#54
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 327,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.