↓ Skip to main content

HAPDeNovo: a haplotype-based approach for filtering and phasing de novo mutations in linked read sequencing data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, June 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
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
HAPDeNovo: a haplotype-based approach for filtering and phasing de novo mutations in linked read sequencing data
Published in
BMC Genomics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4867-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xin Zhou, Serafim Batzoglou, Arend Sidow, Lu Zhang

Abstract

De novo mutations (DNMs) are associated with neurodevelopmental and congenital diseases, and their detection can contribute to understanding disease pathogenicity. However, accurate detection is challenging because of their small number relative to the genome-wide false positives in next generation sequencing (NGS) data. Software such as DeNovoGear and TrioDeNovo have been developed to detect DNMs, but at good sensitivity they still produce many false positive calls. To address this challenge, we develop HAPDeNovo, a program that leverages phasing information from linked read sequencing, to remove false positive DNMs from candidate lists generated by DNM-detection tools. Short reads from each phasing block are allocated to each of the two haplotypes followed by generating a haploid genotype for each putative DNM. HAPDeNovo removes variants that are called as heterozygous in one of the haplotypes because they are almost certainly false positives. Our experiments on 10X Chromium linked read sequencing trio data reveal that HAPDeNovo eliminates 80 to 99% of false positives regardless of how large the candidate DNM set is. HAPDeNovo leverages the haplotype information from linked read sequencing to remove spurious false positive DNMs effectively, and it increases accuracy of DNM detection dramatically without sacrificing sensitivity.

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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 17%
Computer Science 5 14%
Chemistry 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 17%
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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#5,732
of 10,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,268
of 328,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#108
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,705 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 328,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.