Cited by 429Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenomics and Rare DiseasesCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Best practices for benchmarking germline small-variant calls in human genomes

Open access
the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Benchmarking Team, Krusche, Peter, Trigg, Len, Boutros, Paul C., Mason, Christopher E., De La Vega, Francisco M., Moore, Benjamin L., Gonzalez-Porta, Mar +10 more·2019·Nature Biotechnology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Standardized benchmarking approaches are required to assess the accuracy of variants called from sequence data. Although variant-calling tools and the metrics used to assess their performance continue to improve, important challenges remain. Here, as part of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH), we present a benchmarking framework for variant calling. We provide guidance on how to match variant calls with different representations, define standard performance metrics, and stratify performance by variant type and genome context. We describe limitations of high-confidence calls and regions that can be used as truth sets (for example, single-nucleotide variant concordance of two methods is 99.7% inside versus 76.5% outside high-confidence regions). Our web-based app enables comparison of variant calls against truth sets to obtain a standardized performance report. Our approach has been piloted in the PrecisionFDA variant-calling challenges to identify the best-in-class variant-calling methods within high-confidence regions. Finally, we recommend a set of best practices for using our tools and evaluating the results.

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/s41587-019-0054-x

Cites

33 of 33 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Benchmarking Team, Krusche, P., Trigg, L., Boutros, P. C., Mason, C. E., De La Vega, F. M., Moore, B. L., Gonzalez-Porta, M., Eberle, M. A., Tezak, Z., Lababidi, S., Truty, R., Asimenos, G., Funke, B., Fleharty, M., Chapman, B. A., Salit, M., & Zook, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Illumina (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (CA)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • DNAnexus (United States) (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Zook, Justin M.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2019-03-11
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
555-560
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2951331911
Cited by
429
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
16.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
variant calling, benchmarking, germline mutations, small variants, truth set, GA4GH, best practices
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Germ Cells, Humans, Software, Genome, Human, Benchmarking, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Exome

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