SNP detection for massively parallel whole-genome resequencing
Open accessAbstract
Next-generation massively parallel sequencing technologies provide ultrahigh throughput at two orders of magnitude lower unit cost than capillary Sanger sequencing technology. One of the key applications of next-generation sequencing is studying genetic variation between individuals using whole-genome or target region resequencing. Here, we have developed a consensus-calling and SNP-detection method for sequencing-by-synthesis Illumina Genome Analyzer technology. We designed this method by carefully considering the data quality, alignment, and experimental errors common to this technology. All of this information was integrated into a single quality score for each base under Bayesian theory to measure the accuracy of consensus calling. We tested this methodology using a large-scale human resequencing data set of 36× coverage and assembled a high-quality nonrepetitive consensus sequence for 92.25% of the diploid autosomes and 88.07% of the haploid X chromosome. Comparison of the consensus sequence with Illumina human 1M BeadChip genotyped alleles from the same DNA sample showed that 98.6% of the 37,933 genotyped alleles on the X chromosome and 98% of 999,981 genotyped alleles on autosomes were covered at 99.97% and 99.84% consistency, respectively. At a low sequencing depth, we used prior probability of dbSNP alleles and were able to improve coverage of the dbSNP sites significantly as compared to that obtained using a nonimputation model. Our analyses demonstrate that our method has a very low false call rate at any sequencing depth and excellent genome coverage at a high sequencing depth.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 sequencing depth of 98% of the assembly was more than 20-fold, ensuring high accuracy at the nucleotide level.
“The sequencing depth of 98% of the assembly was more than 20-fold (Supplementary Fig. 1), ensuring high accuracy at the nucleotide level 11 .”
From The yak genome and adaptation to life at high altitude (2012) · cites this paper as [11]
The Abstract (page unavailable) reports high nucleotide-call accuracy in a deep human resequencing dataset, and the Discussion (page unavailable) describes the method as measuring accuracy at each nucleotide position. But the reported 98% refers to coverage of genotyped autosomal sites, not the proportion of an assembly sequenced at more than 20-fold depth. Our copy does not substantiate that depth figure. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHigh coverage permitted the identification of 2.2 million heterozygous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) within the sequenced individual.
“High coverage 11,12 permitted the identification of 2.2 million heterozygous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) within the sequenced individual (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 and Supplementary Tables 7 and 8).”
From The yak genome and adaptation to life at high altitude (2012) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 944
- Authors
- Li, R., Li, Y., Fang, X., Yang, H., Wang, J., Kristiansen, K., & Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- BGI Group (China) (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Jian
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2009-05-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1124-1132
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2694485
- OpenAlex
- W2124960286
- Cited by
- 944
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 96 · 2014: 111 · 2013: 105 · 2012: 84
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Genome Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (90608010, 30221004, 90612019, 90403130, 30725008, 30392130)
- Lundbeckfonden
- H. Lundbeck A/S
- National High-tech Research and Development Program
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2007CB815705, 2007CB815703, 2007CB815701)
- 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 › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
- Keywords
- SNP detection, whole-genome resequencing, consensus calling, sequencing errors, human genome, X chromosome, sequencing depth
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Genetics, Population, Genotype, Humans, Models, Genetic, Probability, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Genome, Human, Likelihood Functions, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Chromosomes, Human, X, Asian People
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