Cited by 2,145Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classification

Qualimap 2: advanced multi-sample quality control for high-throughput sequencing data

Open access
Okonechnikov, Konstantin, Conesa, Ana, García-Alcalde, Fernando·2016·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Detection of random errors and systematic biases is a crucial step of a robust pipeline for processing high-throughput sequencing (HTS) data. Bioinformatics software tools capable of performing this task are available, either for general analysis of HTS data or targeted to a specific sequencing technology. However, most of the existing QC instruments only allow processing of one sample at a time. Results: Qualimap 2 represents a next step in the QC analysis of HTS data. Along with comprehensive single-sample analysis of alignment data, it includes new modes that allow simultaneous processing and comparison of multiple samples. As with the first version, the new features are available via both graphical and command line interface. Additionally, it includes a large number of improvements proposed by the user community. Availability and implementation: The implementation of the software along with documentation is freely available at http://www.qualimap.org. Contact: meyer@mpiib-berlin.mpg.de Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv566

Cites

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Adams D. (2012) BLUEPRINT to decode the epigenetic signature written in blood. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 224– 226. 22398613
  2. Anders S. (2013) Count-based differential expression analysis of RNA sequencing data using R and Bioconductor. Nat. Protoc. 8, 1765– 1786. 23975260
  3. DeLuca D.S. (2012) RNA-SeQC: RNA-seq metrics for quality control and process optimization. Bioinformatics, 28, 1530– 1532. 22539670 PMC3356847
  4. García-Alcalde F. (2012) Qualimap: evaluating next-generation sequencing alignment data. Bioinformatics, 28, 2678– 2679. 22914218
  5. Koeppel M. (2015) Helicobacter pylori infection causes characteristic DNA damage patterns in human cells. Cell Rep., 11, 1703– 1713. 26074077
  6. Patel R.K. Mukesh J. (2012) NGS QC toolkit: a toolkit for quality control of next generation sequencing data. PLoS One, 7, e30619. 22312429 PMC3270013
  7. Ramirez-Gonzalez R.H. (2013) StatsDB: platform-agnostic storage and understanding of next generation sequencing run metrics. F1000Res. 2, 248. 24627795 PMC3938176
  8. Rosenbloom K.R. (2013) ENCODE data in the UCSC Genome Browser: year 5 update. Nucleic Acids Res., 41, D56– D63. 23193274 PMC3531152
  9. Ross M.G. (2013) Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data. Genome Biol., 14, R51. 23718773 PMC4053816
  10. Sims D. (2014) Sequencing depth and coverage: key considerations in genomic analyses. Nat. Rev. Genet., 15, 121– 132. 24434847
  11. Wang L. (2012) RSeQC: quality control of RNA-seq experiments. Bioinformatics, 28, 2184– 2185. 22743226

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Okonechnikov, K., Conesa, A., & García-Alcalde, F.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology (DE)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
García-Alcalde, Fernando
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2015-10-01
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
292-294
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2111281047
Cited by
2,145
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 271 · 2025: 295 · 2024: 352 · 2023: 274 · 2022: 267 · 2021: 228 · 2020: 175 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 1
FWCI
24.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (217768)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
high-throughput sequencing data, quality control, multi-sample analysis, random error, systematic bias, bioinformatics software
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Quality Control, Software, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Genomics, 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