359 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29552334)
1. A review of somatic single nucleotide variant calling algorithms for next-generation sequencing data.
Xu C
Comput Struct Biotechnol J; 2018; 16():15-24. PubMed ID: 29552334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy and reproducibility of somatic point mutation calling in clinical-type targeted sequencing data.
Karimnezhad A; Palidwor GA; Thavorn K; Stewart DJ; Campbell PA; Lo B; Perkins TJ
BMC Med Genomics; 2020 Oct; 13(1):156. PubMed ID: 33059707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of Nine Somatic Variant Callers for Detection of Somatic Mutations in Exome and Targeted Deep Sequencing Data.
Krøigård AB; Thomassen M; Lænkholm AV; Kruse TA; Larsen MJ
PLoS One; 2016; 11(3):e0151664. PubMed ID: 27002637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. SNooPer: a machine learning-based method for somatic variant identification from low-pass next-generation sequencing.
Spinella JF; Mehanna P; Vidal R; Saillour V; Cassart P; Richer C; Ouimet M; Healy J; Sinnett D
BMC Genomics; 2016 Nov; 17(1):912. PubMed ID: 27842494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of somatic variant detection algorithms using Ion Torrent targeted deep sequencing data.
Wang Q; Kotoula V; Hsu PC; Papadopoulou K; Ho JWK; Fountzilas G; Giannoulatou E
BMC Med Genomics; 2019 Dec; 12(Suppl 9):181. PubMed ID: 31874647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Systematic benchmark of state-of-the-art variant calling pipelines identifies major factors affecting accuracy of coding sequence variant discovery.
Barbitoff YA; Abasov R; Tvorogova VE; Glotov AS; Predeus AV
BMC Genomics; 2022 Feb; 23(1):155. PubMed ID: 35193511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comprehensive benchmarking of SNV callers for highly admixed tumor data.
Bohnert R; Vivas S; Jansen G
PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186175. PubMed ID: 29020110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Leveraging Spatial Variation in Tumor Purity for Improved Somatic Variant Calling of Archival Tumor Only Samples.
Halperin RF; Liang WS; Kulkarni S; Tassone EE; Adkins J; Enriquez D; Tran NL; Hank NC; Newell J; Kodira C; Korn R; Berens ME; Kim S; Byron SA
Front Oncol; 2019; 9():119. PubMed ID: 30949446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. SNVSniffer: an integrated caller for germline and somatic single-nucleotide and indel mutations.
Liu Y; Loewer M; Aluru S; Schmidt B
BMC Syst Biol; 2016 Aug; 10 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):47. PubMed ID: 27489955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Construction of a combinatorial pipeline using two somatic variant calling methods for whole exome sequence data of gastric cancer.
Kohmoto T; Masuda K; Naruto T; Tange S; Shoda K; Hamada J; Saito M; Ichikawa D; Tajima A; Otsuji E; Imoto I
J Med Invest; 2017; 64(3.4):233-240. PubMed ID: 28954988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Somatic and Germline Variant Calling from Next-Generation Sequencing Data.
Chang TC; Xu K; Cheng Z; Wu G
Adv Exp Med Biol; 2022; 1361():37-54. PubMed ID: 35230682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluating the performance of low-frequency variant calling tools for the detection of variants from short-read deep sequencing data.
Xiang X; Lu B; Song D; Li J; Shu K; Pu D
Sci Rep; 2023 Nov; 13(1):20444. PubMed ID: 37993475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. UMI-VarCal: a new UMI-based variant caller that efficiently improves low-frequency variant detection in paired-end sequencing NGS libraries.
Sater V; Viailly PJ; Lecroq T; Prieur-Gaston É; Bohers É; Viennot M; Ruminy P; Dauchel H; Vera P; Jardin F
Bioinformatics; 2020 May; 36(9):2718-2724. PubMed ID: 31985795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Best practices for evaluating single nucleotide variant calling methods for microbial genomics.
Olson ND; Lund SP; Colman RE; Foster JT; Sahl JW; Schupp JM; Keim P; Morrow JB; Salit ML; Zook JM
Front Genet; 2015; 6():235. PubMed ID: 26217378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Benchmarking the Effectiveness and Accuracy of Multiple Mitochondrial DNA Variant Callers: Practical Implications for Clinical Application.
Ip EKK; Troup M; Xu C; Winlaw DS; Dunwoodie SL; Giannoulatou E
Front Genet; 2022; 13():692257. PubMed ID: 35350246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. RDscan: A New Method for Improving Germline and Somatic Variant Calling Based on Read Depth Distribution.
Lee S; Hong S; Woo J; Lee JH; Kim K; Kim L; Park K; Jung J
J Comput Biol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):987-1000. PubMed ID: 35749140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Improving somatic exome sequencing performance by biological replicates.
Cebeci YE; Erturk RA; Ergun MA; Baysan M
BMC Bioinformatics; 2024 Mar; 25(1):124. PubMed ID: 38519906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. ICR142 Benchmarker: evaluating, optimising and benchmarking variant calling performance using the ICR142 NGS validation series.
Ruark E; Holt E; Renwick A; Münz M; Wakeling M; Ellard S; Mahamdallie S; Yost S; Rahman N
Wellcome Open Res; 2018; 3():108. PubMed ID: 30483600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
