Cited by 575Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

WASP: allele-specific software for robust molecular quantitative trait locus discovery

Open access
van de Geijn, Bryce, McVicker, Graham, Gilad, Yoav, Pritchard, Jonathan K·2015·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Allele-specific sequencing reads provide a powerful signal for identifying molecular quantitative trait loci (QTLs), but they are challenging to analyze and are prone to technical artifacts. Here we describe WASP, a suite of tools for unbiased allele-specific read mapping and discovery of molecular QTLs. Using simulated reads, RNA-seq reads and chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) reads, we demonstrate that WASP has a low error rate and is far more powerful than existing QTL-mapping approaches.

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/nmeth.3582

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • WASP calibration was performed on raw BAM files to eliminate allelic bias towards reference alleles during alignment.

    “To further eliminate allelic bias towards reference alleles during the alignment step, we performed WASP (v.0.3.4) calibration on the generated raw BAM files68.”

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: 19

  1. [1]Degner JF Nature 482 390 394 2012 22307276 PMC3501342
  2. [2]Montgomery SB Nature 464 773 777 2010 20220756 PMC3836232
  3. [3]Pickrell JK Nature 464 768 2010 20220758 PMC3089435
  4. [4]Skelly DA Johansson M Madeoy J Wakefield J Akey JM Genome research 21 1728 1737 2011 21873452 PMC3202289
  5. [5]Harvey CT Bioinformatics 31 1235 1242 2015 25480375 PMC4393517
  6. [6]Sun W Biometrics 68 1 11 2012 21838806 PMC3218220
  7. [7]Degner JF Bioinformatics 25 3207 3212 2009 19808877 PMC2788925
  8. [8]Panousis NI Gutierrez-Arcelus M Dermitzakis ET Lappalainen T Genome biology 15 467 2014 25239376 PMC4212091
  9. [9]Anders S Huber W Genome biology 11 R106 2010 20979621 PMC3218662
  10. [10]Rozowsky J Mol Syst Biol 7 522 2011 21811232 PMC3208341
  11. [11]Liu Z Genet Epidemiol 38 591 598 2014 25183311
  12. [12]Roberts A Pachter L Nat Methods 10 71 73 2013 23160280 PMC3880119
  13. [13]Turro E Genome biology 12 R13 2011 21310039 PMC3188795
  14. [14]Li H Bioinformatics 25 2078 2079 2009 19505943 PMC2723002
  15. [15]Benjamini Y Speed TP Nucleic Acids Res 40 e72 2012 22323520 PMC3378858
  16. [16]McVicker G Science 342 747 749 2013 24136359 PMC3947669
  17. [17]Lappalainen T Nature 501 506 511 2013 24037378 PMC3918453
  18. [18]Katz Y Wang ET Airoldi EM Burge CB Nat Methods 7 1009 1015 2010 21057496 PMC3037023
  19. [19]Trapnell C Nat Biotechnol 31 46 53 2013 23222703 PMC3869392

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van de Geijn, B., McVicker, G., Gilad, Y., & Pritchard, J. K.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Pritchard, Jonathan K
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2015-09-14
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
1061-1063
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2221356560
Cited by
575
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 5
FWCI
13.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0638477)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (MH101825)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH101825, R01MH101825)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006123, HG006123, HG007036, U01HG007036)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM007197, T32GM007197)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
RNA-seq, ChIP-seq, technical artifacts, open-source bioinformatics software, simulated reads
MeSH terms
Alleles, Genotype, Haplotypes, Heterozygote, Humans, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Likelihood Functions, Artifacts, Genome, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Quantitative Trait Loci, Chromatin Immunoprecipitation

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