304 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25289185)
1. Detailed comparison of two popular variant calling packages for exome and targeted exon studies.
Warden CD; Adamson AW; Neuhausen SL; Wu X
PeerJ; 2014; 2():e600. PubMed ID: 25289185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of post-alignment processing in variant discovery from whole exome data.
Tian S; Yan H; Kalmbach M; Slager SL
BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Oct; 17(1):403. PubMed ID: 27716037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Identification and validation of loss of function variants in clinical contexts.
Lescai F; Marasco E; Bacchelli C; Stanier P; Mantovani V; Beales P
Mol Genet Genomic Med; 2014 Jan; 2(1):58-63. PubMed ID: 24498629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of insertion/deletion calling algorithms on human next-generation sequencing data.
Ghoneim DH; Myers JR; Tuttle E; Paciorkowski AR
BMC Res Notes; 2014 Dec; 7():864. PubMed ID: 25435282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. VariantMetaCaller: automated fusion of variant calling pipelines for quantitative, precision-based filtering.
Gézsi A; Bolgár B; Marx P; Sarkozy P; Szalai C; Antal P
BMC Genomics; 2015 Oct; 16():875. PubMed ID: 26510841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Validation and assessment of variant calling pipelines for next-generation sequencing.
Pirooznia M; Kramer M; Parla J; Goes FS; Potash JB; McCombie WR; Zandi PP
Hum Genomics; 2014 Jul; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 25078893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An analytical workflow for accurate variant discovery in highly divergent regions.
Tian S; Yan H; Neuhauser C; Slager SL
BMC Genomics; 2016 Sep; 17(1):703. PubMed ID: 27590916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluating the accuracy of variant calling methods using the frequency of parent-offspring genotype mismatch.
Jasper RJ; McDonald TK; Singh P; Lu M; Rougeux C; Lind BM; Yeaman S
Mol Ecol Resour; 2022 Oct; 22(7):2524-2533. PubMed ID: 35510784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. GATK hard filtering: tunable parameters to improve variant calling for next generation sequencing targeted gene panel data.
De Summa S; Malerba G; Pinto R; Mori A; Mijatovic V; Tommasi S
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Mar; 18(Suppl 5):119. PubMed ID: 28361668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Low concordance of multiple variant-calling pipelines: practical implications for exome and genome sequencing.
O'Rawe J; Jiang T; Sun G; Wu Y; Wang W; Hu J; Bodily P; Tian L; Hakonarson H; Johnson WE; Wei Z; Wang K; Lyon GJ
Genome Med; 2013; 5(3):28. PubMed ID: 23537139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of variant calling tools for large plant genome re-sequencing.
Yao Z; You FM; N'Diaye A; Knox RE; McCartney C; Hiebert CW; Pozniak C; Xu W
BMC Bioinformatics; 2020 Aug; 21(1):360. PubMed ID: 32807073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. OVarFlow: a resource optimized GATK 4 based Open source Variant calling workFlow.
Bathke J; Lühken G
BMC Bioinformatics; 2021 Aug; 22(1):402. PubMed ID: 34388963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quality control and integration of genotypes from two calling pipelines for whole genome sequence data in the Alzheimer's disease sequencing project.
Naj AC; Lin H; Vardarajan BN; White S; Lancour D; Ma Y; Schmidt M; Sun F; Butkiewicz M; Bush WS; Kunkle BW; Malamon J; Amin N; Choi SH; Hamilton-Nelson KL; van der Lee SJ; Gupta N; Koboldt DC; Saad M; Wang B; Nato AQ; Sohi HK; Kuzma A; ; Wang LS; Cupples LA; van Duijn C; Seshadri S; Schellenberg GD; Boerwinkle E; Bis JC; Dupuis J; Salerno WJ; Wijsman EM; Martin ER; DeStefano AL
Genomics; 2019 Jul; 111(4):808-818. PubMed ID: 29857119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Systematic comparison of variant calling pipelines of target genome sequencing cross multiple next-generation sequencers.
Feng B; Lai J; Fan X; Liu Y; Wang M; Wu P; Zhou Z; Yan Q; Sun L
Front Genet; 2023; 14():1293974. PubMed ID: 38239851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An optimized genomic VCF workflow for precise identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis cluster from cross-platform whole genome sequencing data.
Disratthakit A; Toyo-Oka L; Thawong P; Paiboonsiri P; Wichukjinda N; Ajawatanawong P; Thipkrua N; Suthum K; Palittapongarnpim P; Tokunaga K; Mahasirimongkol S
Infect Genet Evol; 2020 Apr; 79():104152. PubMed ID: 31881359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of GATK and DeepVariant by trio sequencing.
Lin YL; Chang PC; Hsu C; Hung MZ; Chien YH; Hwu WL; Lai F; Lee NC
Sci Rep; 2022 Feb; 12(1):1809. PubMed ID: 35110657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detailed simulation of cancer exome sequencing data reveals differences and common limitations of variant callers.
Hofmann AL; Behr J; Singer J; Kuipers J; Beisel C; Schraml P; Moch H; Beerenwinkel N
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):8. PubMed ID: 28049408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance evaluation of pipelines for mapping, variant calling and interval padding, for the analysis of NGS germline panels.
Zanti M; Michailidou K; Loizidou MA; Machattou C; Pirpa P; Christodoulou K; Spyrou GM; Kyriacou K; Hadjisavvas A
BMC Bioinformatics; 2021 Apr; 22(1):218. PubMed ID: 33910496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of sequencing data processing pipelines and application to underrepresented African human populations.
Breton G; Johansson ACV; Sjödin P; Schlebusch CM; Jakobsson M
BMC Bioinformatics; 2021 Oct; 22(1):488. PubMed ID: 34627144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Benchmarking variant callers in next-generation and third-generation sequencing analysis.
Pei S; Liu T; Ren X; Li W; Chen C; Xie Z
Brief Bioinform; 2021 May; 22(3):. PubMed ID: 32698196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
