title: Comparing a few SNP calling algorithms using low-coverage sequencing data.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Many Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) calling programs have been developed to identify Single Nucleotide Variations (SNVs) in next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. However, low sequencing coverage presents challenges to accurate SNV identification, especially in single-sample data. Moreover, commonly used SNP calling programs usually include several metrics in their output files for each potential SNP. These metrics are highly correlated in complex patterns, making it extremely difficult to select SNPs for further experimental validations.
  
  
  RESULTS
  To explore solutions to the above challenges, we compare the performance of four SNP calling algorithm, SOAPsnp, Atlas-SNP2, SAMtools, and GATK, in a low-coverage single-sample sequencing dataset. Without any post-output filtering, SOAPsnp calls more SNVs than the other programs since it has fewer internal filtering criteria. Atlas-SNP2 has stringent internal filtering criteria; thus it reports the least number of SNVs. The numbers of SNVs called by GATK and SAMtools fall between SOAPsnp and Atlas-SNP2. Moreover, we explore the values of key metrics related to SNVs' quality in each algorithm and use them as post-output filtering criteria to filter out low quality SNVs. Under different coverage cutoff values, we compare four algorithms and calculate the empirical positive calling rate and sensitivity. Our results show that: 1) the overall agreement of the four calling algorithms is low, especially in non-dbSNPs; 2) the agreement of the four algorithms is similar when using different coverage cutoffs, except that the non-dbSNPs agreement level tends to increase slightly with increasing coverage; 3) SOAPsnp, SAMtools, and GATK have a higher empirical calling rate for dbSNPs compared to non-dbSNPs; and 4) overall, GATK and Atlas-SNP2 have a relatively higher positive calling rate and sensitivity, but GATK calls more SNVs.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results show that the agreement between different calling algorithms is relatively low. Thus, more caution should be used in choosing algorithms, setting filtering parameters, and designing validation studies. For reliable SNV calling results, we recommend that users employ more than one algorithm and use metrics related to calling quality and coverage as filtering criteria.
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA. ssun5211@yahoo.com.
authors.forename: Xiaoqing
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Yu
authors.forename: Shuying
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sun
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D019295:Computational Biology / Q000379:methods*; D030541:Databases, Genetic; D059014:High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D020641:Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide / Q000235:genetics*
references.citation: Diabetologia. 2005 Oct;48(10):2013-7
references.pmid: 16132956
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2011 Jul 1;27(13):i77-84
references.pmid: 21685105
references.citation: Nature. 2003 May 29;423(6939):506-11
references.pmid: 12724780
references.citation: Genome Res. 1998 Dec;8(12):1229-31
references.pmid: 9872978
references.citation: Diabetes. 2011 Feb;60(2):662-8
references.pmid: 20980453
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 15;26(12):i318-24
references.pmid: 20529923
references.citation: Genome Med. 2013 Mar 27;5(3):28
references.pmid: 23537139
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2010 Feb 15;26(4):572-3
references.pmid: 20031974
references.citation: Oncogene. 2007 Feb 26;26(9):1317-23
references.pmid: 17322917
references.citation: Stat Biosci. 2013 May;5(1):3-25
references.pmid: 24489615
references.citation: Diabet Med. 2006 Apr;23(4):367-76
references.pmid: 16620264
references.citation: Genome Res. 2008 Nov;18(11):1851-8
references.pmid: 18714091
references.citation: Genome Res. 2009 Jun;19(6):1124-32
references.pmid: 19420381
references.citation: Genome Res. 2010 Feb;20(2):273-80
references.pmid: 20019143
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
references.pmid: 19505943
references.citation: Genome Res. 2010 Dec;20(12):1711-8
references.pmid: 21041413
references.citation: Mod Pathol. 2012 Dec;25(12):1599-608
references.pmid: 22878650
references.citation: BioData Min. 2012 Jun 18;5(1):6
references.pmid: 22709551
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Dec;77(6):937-44
references.pmid: 16380906
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 8;102(6):2004-9
references.pmid: 15684076
references.citation: Nature. 2012 Nov 1;491(7422):56-65
references.pmid: 23128226
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Feb 15;409(6822):853-5
references.pmid: 11237009
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2011 Oct 09;43(11):1066-73
references.pmid: 21983784
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Jan;11(1):31-46
references.pmid: 19997069
references.citation: Genome Res. 2010 Sep;20(9):1297-303
references.pmid: 20644199
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2011 May;43(5):491-8
references.pmid: 21478889
references.citation: Brief Bioinform. 2014 Mar;15(2):256-78
references.pmid: 23341494
references.citation: Genome Res. 2011 Jun;21(6):940-51
references.pmid: 21460063
references.citation: JAMA. 2002 Apr 3;287(13):1690-8
references.pmid: 11926893
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):730-6
references.pmid: 20130035
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Nov 15;11(22):8097-104
references.pmid: 16299241
references.citation: Hum Genet. 2005 Oct;118(1):67-75
references.pmid: 16078049
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2009 Sep 1;25(17):2283-5
references.pmid: 19542151
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Oct;39(19):e132
references.pmid: 21813454
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2010 Nov 15;26(22):2803-10
references.pmid: 20861027
references.citation: Hum Mol Genet. 2010 Aug 15;19(16):3295-301
references.pmid: 20534741
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2004 May;5(5):335-44
references.pmid: 15143316
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 15;27(6):865-6
references.pmid: 21278191
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2000 Sep;26(1):76-80
references.pmid: 10973253
references.citation: Nat Methods. 2008 Feb;5(2):179-81
references.pmid: 18193056
references.citation: Hum Mol Genet. 2006 Jul 1;15(13):2170-82
references.pmid: 16740596