Calling known variants and identifying new variants while rapidly aligning sequence data.

来自 PUBMED

作者:

VanRaden PMBickhart DMO'Connell JR

展开

摘要:

Whole-genome sequencing studies can identify causative mutations for subsequent use in genomic evaluations. Speed and accuracy of sequence alignment can be improved by accounting for known variant locations during alignment instead of calling the variants after alignment as in previous programs. The new programs Findmap and Findvar were compared with alignment using Burrows-Wheeler alignment (BWA) or SNAP and variant identification using Genome Analysis ToolKit (GATK) or SAMtools. Findmap stores the reference map and any known variant locations while aligning reads and counting reference and alternate alleles for each DNA source. Findmap also outputs potential new single nucleotide variant, insertion, and deletion alleles. Findvar separates likely true variants from read errors and outputs genotype probabilities. Strategies were tested using cattle, human, and a completely random reference map and simulated or actual data. Most tests simulated 10 bulls, each with 10× simulated sequence reads containing 39 million variants from the 1000 Bull Genomes Project. With 10 processors, clock times for processing 100× data were 105 h for BWA, 25 h for GATK, and 11 h for SAMtools but only about 4 h for SNAP, 3 h for Findmap, and 1 h for Findvar. Alignment programs required about the same total memory; BWA used 46 GB (4.6 GB/processor), whereas >10 processors can share the same memory in SNAP and Findmap, which used 40 and 46 GB, respectively. Findmap correctly mapped 92.9% of reads (compared with 92.6% from SNAP and 90.5% from BWA) and had high accuracy of calling alleles for known variants. For new variants, Findvar found 99.8% of single nucleotide variants, 79% of insertions, and 67% of deletions; GATK found 99.4, 95, and 90%, respectively; and SAMtools found 99.8, 12, and 16%, respectively. False positives (as percentages of true variants) were 11% of single nucleotide variants, 0.4% of insertions, and 0.3% of deletions from Findvar; 12, 8.4, and 2.9%, respectively, from GATK; and 37, 1.3, and 0.4%, respectively, from SAMtools. Advantages of Findmap and Findvar are fast processing, precise alignment, more useful data summaries, more compact output, and fewer steps. Calling known variants during alignment allows more efficient and accurate sequence-based genotyping.

收起

展开

DOI:

10.3168/jds.2018-15172

被引量:

0

年份:

1970

SCI-Hub (全网免费下载) 发表链接

通过 文献互助 平台发起求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。

查看求助

求助方法1:

知识发现用户

每天可免费求助50篇

求助

求助方法1:

关注微信公众号

每天可免费求助2篇

求助方法2:

求助需要支付5个财富值

您现在财富值不足

您可以通过 应助全文 获取财富值

求助方法2:

完成求助需要支付5财富值

您目前有 1000 财富值

求助

我们已与文献出版商建立了直接购买合作。

你可以通过身份认证进行实名认证,认证成功后本次下载的费用将由您所在的图书馆支付

您可以直接购买此文献,1~5分钟即可下载全文,部分资源由于网络原因可能需要更长时间,请您耐心等待哦~

身份认证 全文购买

相似文献(0)

参考文献(0)

引证文献(0)

来源期刊

-

影响因子:暂无数据

JCR分区: 暂无

中科院分区:暂无

研究点推荐

关于我们

zlive学术集成海量学术资源,融合人工智能、深度学习、大数据分析等技术,为科研工作者提供全面快捷的学术服务。在这里我们不忘初心,砥砺前行。

友情链接

联系我们

合作与服务

©2024 zlive学术声明使用前必读