195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32252268)
1. Comparison of Read Mapping and Variant Calling Tools for the Analysis of Plant NGS Data.
Schilbert HM; Rempel A; Pucker B
Plants (Basel); 2020 Apr; 9(4):. PubMed ID: 32252268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Benchmarking variant identification tools for plant diversity discovery.
Wu X; Heffelfinger C; Zhao H; Dellaporta SL
BMC Genomics; 2019 Sep; 20(1):701. PubMed ID: 31500583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. An investigation of causes of false positive single nucleotide polymorphisms using simulated reads from a small eukaryote genome.
Ribeiro A; Golicz A; Hackett CA; Milne I; Stephen G; Marshall D; Flavell AJ; Bayer M
BMC Bioinformatics; 2015 Nov; 16():382. PubMed ID: 26558718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of an optimized germline exomes pipeline using BWA-MEM2 and Dragen-GATK tools.
Alganmi N; Abusamra H
PLoS One; 2023; 18(8):e0288371. PubMed ID: 37535628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. MutAid: Sanger and NGS Based Integrated Pipeline for Mutation Identification, Validation and Annotation in Human Molecular Genetics.
Pandey RV; Pabinger S; Kriegner A; Weinhäusel A
PLoS One; 2016; 11(2):e0147697. PubMed ID: 26840129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Performance analysis of conventional and AI-based variant callers using short and long reads.
Abdelwahab O; Belzile F; Torkamaneh D
BMC Bioinformatics; 2023 Dec; 24(1):472. PubMed ID: 38097928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparing genomic variant identification protocols for
Li X; Muñoz JF; Gade L; Argimon S; Bougnoux ME; Bowers JR; Chow NA; Cuesta I; Farrer RA; Maufrais C; Monroy-Nieto J; Pradhan D; Uehling J; Vu D; Yeats CA; Aanensen DM; d'Enfert C; Engelthaler DM; Eyre DW; Fisher MC; Hagen F; Meyer W; Singh G; Alastruey-Izquierdo A; Litvintseva AP; Cuomo CA
Microb Genom; 2023 Apr; 9(4):. PubMed ID: 37043380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
