166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38239851)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Set-theory based benchmarking of three different variant callers for targeted sequencing.
Molina-Mora JA; Solano-Vargas M
BMC Bioinformatics; 2021 Jan; 22(1):20. PubMed ID: 33413082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling.
Zhang G; Wang J; Yang J; Li W; Deng Y; Li J; Huang J; Hu S; Zhang B
BMC Genomics; 2015 Aug; 16(1):581. PubMed ID: 26242175
[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. 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]
9. 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]
10. A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy.
Wickland DP; Battu G; Hudson KA; Diers BW; Hudson ME
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Dec; 18(1):586. PubMed ID: 29281959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Extend the benchmarking indel set by manual review using the individual cell line sequencing data from the Sequencing Quality Control 2 (SEQC2) project.
Gong B; Li D; Zhang Y; Kusko R; Lababidi S; Cao Z; Chen M; Chen N; Chen Q; Chen Q; Dai J; Gan Q; Gao Y; Guo M; Hariani G; He Y; Hou W; Jiang H; Kushwaha G; Li JL; Li J; Li Y; Liu LC; Liu R; Liu S; Meriaux E; Mo M; Moore M; Moss TJ; Niu Q; Patel A; Ren L; Saremi NF; Shang E; Shang J; Song P; Sun S; Urban BJ; Wang D; Wang S; Wen Z; Xiong X; Yang J; Yin L; Zhang C; Zhang R; Bhandari A; Cai W; Eterovic AK; Megherbi DB; Shi T; Suo C; Yu Y; Zheng Y; Novoradovskaya N; Sears RL; Shi L; Jones W; Tong W; Xu J
Sci Rep; 2024 Mar; 14(1):7028. PubMed ID: 38528062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data.
Sandmann S; de Graaf AO; Karimi M; van der Reijden BA; Hellström-Lindberg E; Jansen JH; Dugas M
Sci Rep; 2017 Feb; 7():43169. PubMed ID: 28233799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Towards an accurate and robust analysis pipeline for somatic mutation calling.
Jin J; Chen Z; Liu J; Du H; Zhang G
Front Genet; 2022; 13():979928. PubMed ID: 36457740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of seven SNP calling pipelines for the next-generation sequencing data of chickens.
Liu J; Shen Q; Bao H
PLoS One; 2022; 17(1):e0262574. PubMed ID: 35100292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Benchmarking workflows to assess performance and suitability of germline variant calling pipelines in clinical diagnostic assays.
Krishnan V; Utiramerur S; Ng Z; Datta S; Snyder MP; Ashley EA
BMC Bioinformatics; 2021 Feb; 22(1):85. PubMed ID: 33627090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Detecting somatic point mutations in cancer genome sequencing data: a comparison of mutation callers.
Wang Q; Jia P; Li F; Chen H; Ji H; Hucks D; Dahlman KB; Pao W; Zhao Z
Genome Med; 2013; 5(10):91. PubMed ID: 24112718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
