Cited by 821Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesAlgorithms and Data CompressionFractal and DNA sequence analysis

Variation graph toolkit improves read mapping by representing genetic variation in the reference

Open access
Garrison, Erik, Sirén, Jouni, Novak, Adam M, Hickey, Glenn, Eizenga, Jordan M, Dawson, Eric T, Jones, William, Garg, Shilpa +4 more·2018·Nature Biotechnology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Reference genomes guide our interpretation of DNA sequence data. However, conventional linear references represent only one version of each locus, ignoring variation in the population. Poor representation of an individual's genome sequence impacts read mapping and introduces bias. Variation graphs are bidirected DNA sequence graphs that compactly represent genetic variation across a population, including large-scale structural variation such as inversions and duplications. Previous graph genome software implementations have been limited by scalability or topological constraints. Here we present vg, a toolkit of computational methods for creating, manipulating, and using these structures as references at the scale of the human genome. vg provides an efficient approach to mapping reads onto arbitrary variation graphs using generalized compressed suffix arrays, with improved accuracy over alignment to a linear reference, and effectively removing reference bias. These capabilities make using variation graphs as references for DNA sequencing practical at a gigabase scale, or at the topological complexity of de novo assemblies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt.4227

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Incorporation of more variation helps mitigate reference bias and improves alignment of both modern and aDNA reads.

    “Crucially, the incorporation of more variation helps mitigate reference bias, and this mitigation has been shown to improve the alignment of both modern and aDNA reads [9, 16].”

    From <tt>SAFARI</tt> : pangenome alignment of ancient DNA using purine/pyrimidine encodings (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The paper reports that mapping reads containing non-reference variants to a variation graph improves performance over mapping them to a linear reference, and that graph mapping reduces reference bias (Abstract; page unavailable). It studies simulated and contemporary sequencing reads, but our copy does not report improved alignment of ancient-DNA (aDNA) reads; a search for “ancient” found no such result. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The variation graph toolkit (vg) showed that read mapping to graphs reduces reference bias and better recovers complex variants.

    “The variation graph toolkit (vg) showed that read mapping to graphs reduces reference bias and better recovers complex variants”

    From Topological Approaches in Animal Comparative Genomics (2026) · cites this paper as [206]

    The paper reports that vg mapping to a population graph nearly balances reference- and alternate-allele coverage, while linear-reference mapping increasingly misses reads containing longer insertions (Abstract; no page given). It also reports better mapping of reads containing non-reference variants. These results support reduced reference bias, but do not demonstrate better recovery or calling of complex variants themselves. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Pangenomic methods have rapidly progressed such that it is now practical to propose that common genomic analyses use a pangenome.

    “Pangenomic methods have rapidly progressed over the past few years13–15 such that it is now practical to propose that common genomic analyses use a pangenome.”

    From A draft human pangenome reference. (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

  • There are hundreds of thousands of non-reference indels in a typical human genome, and these have a greater effect on read mapping than SNPs.

    “despite there being hundreds of thousands of non-reference indels in a typical human genome [16], and these having a greater affect on read mapping than SNPs [17]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [28]Beretta S Mapping RNAseq Data to a Transcript Graph via Approximate Pattern Matching to a Hypertext Figueiredo D Martn-Vide C Pratas D Vega-Rodrguez M Algorithms for Computational Biology (AlCoB). Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer Champaign-Urbana 2017 10252 49 61

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garrison, E., Sirén, J., Novak, A. M., Hickey, G., Eizenga, J. M., Dawson, E. T., Jones, W., Garg, S., Markello, C., Lin, M. F., Paten, B., & Durbin, R.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Max Planck Institute for Informatics (DE)
  • DNAnexus (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Garrison, Erik
  • Durbin, Richard
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2018-08-20
Volume
36
Issue
9
Pages
875-879
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2888300707
Cited by
821
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 124 · 2025: 139 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 18 · 2012: 2
FWCI
23.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • W. M. Keck Foundation (DT06172015)
  • Simons Foundation (35190, SFLIFE# 35190)
  • Wellcome Trust (207492, 207492/Z/17/Z, 090851, 109083/Z/15/Z, 109083, /Z/15/Z, 206194)
  • Cambridge Trust
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL137183)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG008345, U41HG007234, U54HG007990)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
Keywords
variation graphs, read mapping, reference genome, reference bias, structural variants, human genome, de novo assembly, population genetic variation
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, DNA, Humans, Genetic Variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review