↓ Skip to main content

An investigation of causes of false positive single nucleotide polymorphisms using simulated reads from a small eukaryote genome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An investigation of causes of false positive single nucleotide polymorphisms using simulated reads from a small eukaryote genome
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0801-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Ribeiro, Agnieszka Golicz, Christine Anne Hackett, Iain Milne, Gordon Stephen, David Marshall, Andrew J. Flavell, Micha Bayer

Abstract

Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) are widely used molecular markers, and their use has increased massively since the inception of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies, which allow detection of large numbers of SNPs at low cost. However, both NGS data and their analysis are error-prone, which can lead to the generation of false positive (FP) SNPs. We explored the relationship between FP SNPs and seven factors involved in mapping-based variant calling - quality of the reference sequence, read length, choice of mapper and variant caller, mapping stringency and filtering of SNPs by read mapping quality and read depth. This resulted in 576 possible factor level combinations. We used error- and variant-free simulated reads to ensure that every SNP found was indeed a false positive. The variation in the number of FP SNPs generated ranged from 0 to 36,621 for the 120 million base pairs (Mbp) genome. All of the experimental factors tested had statistically significant effects on the number of FP SNPs generated and there was a considerable amount of interaction between the different factors. Using a fragmented reference sequence led to a dramatic increase in the number of FP SNPs generated, as did relaxed read mapping and a lack of SNP filtering. The choice of reference assembler, mapper and variant caller also significantly affected the outcome. The effect of read length was more complex and suggests a possible interaction between mapping specificity and the potential for contributing more false positives as read length increases. The choice of tools and parameters involved in variant calling can have a dramatic effect on the number of FP SNPs produced, with particularly poor combinations of software and/or parameter settings yielding tens of thousands in this experiment. Between-factor interactions make simple recommendations difficult for a SNP discovery pipeline but the quality of the reference sequence is clearly of paramount importance. Our findings are also a stark reminder that it can be unwise to use the relaxed mismatch settings provided as defaults by some read mappers when reads are being mapped to a relatively unfinished reference sequence from e.g. a non-model organism in its early stages of genomic exploration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 7 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 24%
Computer Science 11 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 12 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,879,222
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#828
of 7,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,876
of 293,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#8
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.