IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0339891.html

Variant calling in genomics: A comparative performance analysis and decision guide

Author

Listed:
  • Vera Pinto
  • Lisete Sousa
  • Carina Silva

Abstract

The accurate detection of genetic variants is critical for advancing genomics research and precision medicine. However, this task remains challenging due to pervasive sequencing errors and complex genomic regions. The choice of variant calling software significantly influences results, creating a need for clear, evidence-based guidance. This study aims to provide a performance evaluation and a clear, evidence-based guide for selecting variant callers by benchmarking seven widely used tools, GATK, FreeBayes, DeepVariant, Samtools, Strelka2, Octopus, and Varscan2, highlighting their algorithmic trade-offs. The well-characterized NA12878 genome from the Genome in a Bottle consortium was analyzed. High-coverage whole-genome sequencing data was processed with each variant caller, and the resulting variant calling files were benchmarked against a gold-standard reference. Performance was assessed using precision, recall, and F1-score on a chromosome 20 subset and on full whole-genome data. The analysis revealed that DeepVariant’s deep learning approach achieved the highest precision (0.7869) and F1-score (0.8754) on chromosome 20. For whole-genome analysis, Strelka2 excelled in precision (0.8326), while Octopus demonstrated superior recall (0.9838). FreeBayes exhibited high sensitivity but lower precision, underscoring a key trade-off. There is no universally superior variant caller; the optimal choice depends on the specific research objectives, whether prioritizing precision, recall, or computational efficiency. This study serves as a crucial evidence-based resource for researchers and clinicians, enabling informed tool selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Vera Pinto & Lisete Sousa & Carina Silva, 2026. "Variant calling in genomics: A comparative performance analysis and decision guide," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(2), pages 1-22, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339891
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339891
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339891&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0339891?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339891. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.