ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2024
Exploring the impact of sequence context on errors in SNP genotype calling with whole genome sequencing data using AI-based autoencoder approach.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Thermodynamically programmed one-pot CRISPR platform for point-of-care SNP genotyping.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A critical step in the analysis of whole genome sequencing data is variant calling. Despite its importance, variant calling is prone to errors. Our study investigated the association between incorrect single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calls and variant quality metrics and nucleotide context. In our study, incorrect SNPs were defined in 20 Holstein-Friesian cows by comparing their SNPs genotypes identified by whole genome sequencing with the IlluminaNovaSeq6000 and the EuroGMD50K genotyping microarray. The dataset was divided into the correct SNP set (666 333 SNPs) and the incorrect SNP set (4 557 SNPs). The training dataset consisted of only the correct SNPs, while the test dataset contained a balanced mix of all the incorrectly and correctly called SNPs. An autoencoder was constructed to identify systematically incorrect SNPs that were marked as outliers by a one-class support vector machine and isolation forest algorithms. The results showed that 59.53% (±0.39%) of the incorrect SNPs had systematic patterns, with the remainder being random errors. The frequent occurrence of the CGC 3-mer was due to mislabelling a call for C. Incorrect T instead of A call was associated with the presence of T in the neighbouring downstream position. These errors may arise due to the fluorescence patterns of nucleotide labelling.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.