ArticleBiomolecules2025
Comparative Evaluation of Mutect2, Strelka2, and FreeBayes for Somatic SNV Detection in Synthetic and Clinical Whole-Exome Sequencing Data.
Article in Biomolecules, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Somatic variant calling is a critical step in cancer genome analysis, but the performance of available tools can vary depending on their underlying algorithms and filtering strategies. We compared three widely used variant callers-Mutect2, Strelka2, and FreeBayes-for their performance in somatic single-nucleotide variant (SNV) detection using both synthetic and real whole-exome sequencing (WES) data. Synthetic data were generated by introducing 4709 SNVs into a variant-free BAM file, while real data consisted of tumor and matched normal WES samples from five ovarian cancer (OC) patients. All callers were run using the nf-core/sarek pipeline with default settings and appropriate filtering. In the synthetic dataset, all tools showed high precision (~99.9%), with Mutect2 achieving the highest recall (63.1%), followed by Strelka2 (46.3%) and FreeBayes (45.2%). In real samples, FreeBayes detected the most variants, and only 5.1% of SNVs were shared across all three tools. We then integrated calls with SomaticSeq in consensus mode (Mutect2 + Strelka2) and kept variants with stronger allelic signals-showing higher VAFs and, typically, higher coverages relative to single-caller only. Caller-exclusive variants showed significant differences in allele frequency and sequencing depth. These results highlight substantial variability in SNV detection across tools. While all showed high specificity, differences in sensitivity and variant profiles underscore the need for context-specific caller selection or ensemble approaches in cancer genomics.
Indexed as
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.