Hide metadata

dc.contributor.authorGrytten, Ivar
dc.contributor.authorRand, Knut D
dc.contributor.authorNederbragt, Alexander J
dc.contributor.authorSandve, Geir K
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-07T05:03:08Z
dc.date.available2020-04-07T05:03:08Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationBMC Genomics. 2020 Apr 06;21(1):282
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/74399
dc.description.abstractBackground Graph-based reference genomes have become popular as they allow read mapping and follow-up analyses in settings where the exact haplotypes underlying a high-throughput sequencing experiment are not precisely known. Two recent papers show that mapping to graph-based reference genomes can improve accuracy as compared to methods using linear references. Both of these methods index the sequences for most paths up to a certain length in the graph in order to enable direct mapping of reads containing common variants. However, the combinatorial explosion of possible paths through nearby variants also leads to a huge search space and an increased chance of false positive alignments to highly variable regions. Results We here assess three prominent graph-based read mappers against a hybrid baseline approach that combines an initial path determination with a tuned linear read mapping method. We show, using a previously proposed benchmark, that this simple approach is able to improve overall accuracy of read-mapping to graph-based reference genomes. Conclusions Our method is implemented in a tool Two-step Graph Mapper, which is available at https://github.com/uio-bmi/two_step_graph_mapperalong with data and scripts for reproducing the experiments. Our method highlights characteristics of the current generation of graph-based read mappers and shows potential for improvement for future graph-based read mappers.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsThe Author(s)
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleAssessing graph-based read mappers against a baseline approach highlights strengths and weaknesses of current methods
dc.typeJournal article
dc.date.updated2020-04-07T05:03:10Z
dc.creator.authorGrytten, Ivar
dc.creator.authorRand, Knut D
dc.creator.authorNederbragt, Alexander J
dc.creator.authorSandve, Geir K
dc.identifier.cristin1856152
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6685-y
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-77512
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/74399/1/12864_2020_Article_6685.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion
cristin.articleid282


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International