2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100128
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmarking challenging small variants with linked and long reads

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
99
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
99
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most existing reference imputation panels, such as the HRC (The Haplotype Reference Consortium, 2016) and TOPMed (Taliun et al, 2021), do not yet include SVs due to challenges that SV calling and phasing present. Also, evaluation of SV phasing accuracy has been difficult so far due to unavailability of well-established haplotype-resolved SV truth sets, similar to Platinum Genomes (Eberle et al, 2017) or the GIAB (Wagner et al, 2022;Zook et al, 2019), that exist for SNVs/INDELs. The recently published SV call set from the HGSVC (Ebert et al, 2021) allowed us to circumvent the latter issue and provided a much needed reference for evaluation of SV phasing accuracy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Most existing reference imputation panels, such as the HRC (The Haplotype Reference Consortium, 2016) and TOPMed (Taliun et al, 2021), do not yet include SVs due to challenges that SV calling and phasing present. Also, evaluation of SV phasing accuracy has been difficult so far due to unavailability of well-established haplotype-resolved SV truth sets, similar to Platinum Genomes (Eberle et al, 2017) or the GIAB (Wagner et al, 2022;Zook et al, 2019), that exist for SNVs/INDELs. The recently published SV call set from the HGSVC (Ebert et al, 2021) allowed us to circumvent the latter issue and provided a much needed reference for evaluation of SV phasing accuracy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is consistent with an independent estimation based on NA12878 from the jointly genotyped set of just the 2,504 unrelated samples where FDR is 0.98% (see STAR Methods; Figure S1F). Additionally, we evaluated singletons against the recently released GIAB truth set v4.2.1 (Wagner et al, 2022). Thanks to inclusion of additional technologies such as PacBio-HiFi and 10X Genomics, the GIAB v4.2.1 truth set excludes some of the calls believed to be mosaic variants that arose due to cell-line propagation that were present in the GIAB v3.3.2 truth set.…”
Section: Ll Open Accessmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although VarSCAT can annotate variants that only partially overlap with an STR, we focused on highconfidence individual human small variant sets for analysis. The high-confidence small variant sets had high precision and covered much of the human genome, but they still excluded some difficult regions that were enriched with STRs and limited the sizes of variants due to difficulties in variant genotyping [47][48][49].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assess our newly developed tool, we used variants based on human reference assembly GRCh38 from the ClinVar database [46], Platinum Genome [47], the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) [48,49], and the 1000 Genomes Project [50,51] to study the breakpoint ambiguities of indels and small variants (1-50 bp) in STR regions.…”
Section: An Overview Of Varscatmentioning
confidence: 99%