↓ Skip to main content

Best practices for evaluating single nucleotide variant calling methods for microbial genomics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, July 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
651 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
Best practices for evaluating single nucleotide variant calling methods for microbial genomics
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan D. Olson, Steven P. Lund, Rebecca E. Colman, Jeffrey T. Foster, Jason W. Sahl, James M. Schupp, Paul Keim, Jayne B. Morrow, Marc L. Salit, Justin M. Zook

Abstract

Innovations in sequencing technologies have allowed biologists to make incredible advances in understanding biological systems. As experience grows, researchers increasingly recognize that analyzing the wealth of data provided by these new sequencing platforms requires careful attention to detail for robust results. Thus far, much of the scientific Communit's focus for use in bacterial genomics has been on evaluating genome assembly algorithms and rigorously validating assembly program performance. Missing, however, is a focus on critical evaluation of variant callers for these genomes. Variant calling is essential for comparative genomics as it yields insights into nucleotide-level organismal differences. Variant calling is a multistep process with a host of potential error sources that may lead to incorrect variant calls. Identifying and resolving these incorrect calls is critical for bacterial genomics to advance. The goal of this review is to provide guidance on validating algorithms and pipelines used in variant calling for bacterial genomics. First, we will provide an overview of the variant calling procedures and the potential sources of error associated with the methods. We will then identify appropriate datasets for use in evaluating algorithms and describe statistical methods for evaluating algorithm performance. As variant calling moves from basic research to the applied setting, standardized methods for performance evaluation and reporting are required; it is our hope that this review provides the groundwork for the development of these standards.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 651 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 1%
Germany 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 627 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 170 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 131 20%
Student > Master 104 16%
Student > Bachelor 61 9%
Other 30 5%
Other 71 11%
Unknown 84 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 216 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 167 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 49 8%
Computer Science 40 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 3%
Other 52 8%
Unknown 106 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 19 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,478,218
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#290
of 13,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,900
of 268,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#6
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 268,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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 93% of its contemporaries.