Abstract
Introduction Whole exome sequencing (WES) has become a more accessible diagnostic tool in clinical genetic context, leading to the debate of the most accurate and effective bioinformatic pipeline solutions to evaluate variants that explain diseases. Objective This study aimed to evaluate twenty-four pipelines in two samples comparing accuracy, time and computing efficiency. We also contrasted the results based on regions in two of the most common capture kits. Materials and methods We used two accessions of NA12872 whole exome sequencing to contrast four different free access software for mapping using hg38 reference genome, then we used six different software alternatives for variant calling process. Finally, differences in computational resources and efficacy were evaluated. Results Our results showed that the most accurate and fastest pipeline is BWA with Strelka for SNVs detection, and differences in the use of resources and efficacy were proven. Conclusions BWA and Strelka are the most accurate and fastest for detecting SNVs in clinical exomes. Significant differences in efficiency and resource usage exist among the workflows evaluated. These findings aid in selecting the best methods for clinical contexts.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
All the resources were provided by Biotecgen S.A.S.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All the data were publicly available before the study began under the following SRA IDs: ERR1905890 (https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces?run=ERR1905890) and SRR098401 (https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces?run=SRR098401).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
