234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29673316)
1. A study on fast calling variants from next-generation sequencing data using decision tree.
Li Z; Wang Y; Wang F
BMC Bioinformatics; 2018 Apr; 19(1):145. PubMed ID: 29673316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Optimized detection of insertions/deletions (INDELs) in whole-exome sequencing data.
Kim BY; Park JH; Jo HY; Koo SK; Park MH
PLoS One; 2017; 12(8):e0182272. PubMed ID: 28792971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Variant callers for next-generation sequencing data: a comparison study.
Liu X; Han S; Wang Z; Gelernter J; Yang BZ
PLoS One; 2013; 8(9):e75619. PubMed ID: 24086590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Performance assessment of variant calling pipelines using human whole exome sequencing and simulated data.
Kumaran M; Subramanian U; Devarajan B
BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Jun; 20(1):342. PubMed ID: 31208315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Performance evaluation of indel calling tools using real short-read data.
Hasan MS; Wu X; Zhang L
Hum Genomics; 2015 Aug; 9(1):20. PubMed ID: 26286629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Systematic comparison of germline variant calling pipelines cross multiple next-generation sequencers.
Chen J; Li X; Zhong H; Meng Y; Du H
Sci Rep; 2019 Jun; 9(1):9345. PubMed ID: 31249349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tool evaluation for the detection of variably sized indels from next generation whole genome and targeted sequencing data.
Wang N; Lysenkov V; Orte K; Kairisto V; Aakko J; Khan S; Elo LL
PLoS Comput Biol; 2022 Feb; 18(2):e1009269. PubMed ID: 35176018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A Comparison of Variant Calling Pipelines Using Genome in a Bottle as a Reference.
Cornish A; Guda C
Biomed Res Int; 2015; 2015():456479. PubMed ID: 26539496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Systematic comparison of variant calling pipelines using gold standard personal exome variants.
Hwang S; Kim E; Lee I; Marcotte EM
Sci Rep; 2015 Dec; 5():17875. PubMed ID: 26639839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. From Wet-Lab to Variations: Concordance and Speed of Bioinformatics Pipelines for Whole Genome and Whole Exome Sequencing.
Laurie S; Fernandez-Callejo M; Marco-Sola S; Trotta JR; Camps J; Chacón A; Espinosa A; Gut M; Gut I; Heath S; Beltran S
Hum Mutat; 2016 Dec; 37(12):1263-1271. PubMed ID: 27604516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of INDEL Calling Tools with Simulation Data and Real Short-Read Data.
Li D; Kim W; Wang L; Yoon KA; Park B; Park C; Kong SY; Hwang Y; Baek D; Lee ES; Won S
IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2019; 16(5):1635-1644. PubMed ID: 30004886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluating the Calling Performance of a Rare Disease NGS Panel for Single Nucleotide and Copy Number Variants.
Cacheiro P; Ordóñez-Ugalde A; Quintáns B; Piñeiro-Hermida S; Amigo J; García-Murias M; Pascual-Pascual SI; Grandas F; Arpa J; Carracedo A; Sobrido MJ
Mol Diagn Ther; 2017 Jun; 21(3):303-313. PubMed ID: 28290094
[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. Comparing a few SNP calling algorithms using low-coverage sequencing data.
Yu X; Sun S
BMC Bioinformatics; 2013 Sep; 14():274. PubMed ID: 24044377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. xAtlas: scalable small variant calling across heterogeneous next-generation sequencing experiments.
Farek J; Hughes D; Salerno W; Zhu Y; Pisupati A; Mansfield A; Krasheninina O; English AC; Metcalf G; Boerwinkle E; Muzny DM; Gibbs R; Khan Z; Sedlazeck FJ
Gigascience; 2022 Dec; 12():. PubMed ID: 36644891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
