Cited by 63Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structure

Systematic benchmark of ancient DNA read mapping

Oliva, Adrien, Tobler, Raymond, Cooper, Alan, Llamas, Bastien, Souilmi, Yassine·2021·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Abstract

The current standard practice for assembling individual genomes involves mapping millions of short DNA sequences (also known as DNA 'reads') against a pre-constructed reference genome. Mapping vast amounts of short reads in a timely manner is a computationally challenging task that inevitably produces artefacts, including biases against alleles not found in the reference genome. This reference bias and other mapping artefacts are expected to be exacerbated in ancient DNA (aDNA) studies, which rely on the analysis of low quantities of damaged and very short DNA fragments (~30-80 bp). Nevertheless, the current gold-standard mapping strategies for aDNA studies have effectively remained unchanged for nearly a decade, during which time new software has emerged. In this study, we used simulated aDNA reads from three different human populations to benchmark the performance of 30 distinct mapping strategies implemented across four different read mapping software-BWA-aln, BWA-mem, NovoAlign and Bowtie2-and quantified the impact of reference bias in downstream population genetic analyses. We show that specific NovoAlign, BWA-aln and BWA-mem parameterizations achieve high mapping precision with low levels of reference bias, particularly after filtering out reads with low mapping qualities. However, unbiased NovoAlign results required the use of an IUPAC reference genome. While relevant only to aDNA projects where reference population data are available, the benefit of using an IUPAC reference demonstrates the value of incorporating population genetic information into the aDNA mapping process, echoing recent results based on graph genome representations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bib/bbab076

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The most common mapping tools for aDNA reads are BWA-aln, Bowtie2, and BWA-mem, each with applied aDNA parameters and post-filtering MQ scores of generally ≥25.

    “Presently, the most common mapping tools for aDNA reads are BWA-aln (also known as BWA-backtrack), Bowtie2, and BWA-mem, each with applied aDNA parameters (Poullet and Orlando 2020, Oliva et al. 2021) and post-filtering map quality (MQ) scores of generally ≥25.”

    From Unravelling reference bias in ancient DNA datasets (2024) · cites this paper as Oliva et al. 2021

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Unravelling reference bias in ancient DNA datasets

    Dolenz, S., van der Valk, T., Jin, C., Oppenheimer, J., Sharif, M. B., Orlando, L., Shapiro, B., Dalén, L., & Heintzman, P. D. (2024) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btae436 · Cited by 33 · see citing works

    “Presently, the most common mapping tools for aDNA reads are BWA-aln (also known as BWA-backtrack), Bowtie2, and BWA-mem, each with applied aDNA parameters (Poullet and Orlando 2020, Oliva et al. 2021) and post-filtering map quality (MQ) scores of generally ≥ 25.”
    BackgroundMethod

Authors
Oliva, A., Tobler, R., Cooper, A., Llamas, B., & Souilmi, Y.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • South Australian Museum (AU)
Corresponding author
Souilmi, Yassine
Venue
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Published
2021-04-08
Volume
22
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4054
OpenAlex
W3151257524
Cited by
63
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (DP190103705)
  • ARC PhD Scholarship (IN180100017)
  • ARC DECRA Fellowship (DE190101069)
  • ARC Laureate Fellowship (FL140100260)
  • ARC Future Fellowship (FT170100448)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
ancient DNA, read mapping, reference bias, BWA, Bowtie2, population genetic analysis
MeSH terms
DNA, Ancient, Algorithms, Humans, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Genome, Human, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Benchmarking, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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