Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 17;12:1077. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21395-x

Table 2.

Accuracy of SNP calling, comparing assembly-based calling with two mapping-based approaches on the same libraries’ linked read data, one each from NA12878 (L3) and NA24385 (L5).

SNPs True positives False negatives False positives Genotype mismatch Precision Recall F1
L3 (NA 12878) Aquila (assembly only) 3,004,501 38,282 124,074 4730 0.960 0.987 0.974
FreeBayes 3,037,504 5279 54,088 3501 0.983 0.998 0.990
Longranger 3,040,701 2082 105,854 1621 0.966 0.999 0.983
L5 (NA 24385) Aquila (assembly only) 2,989,567 39,785 93,195 4157 0.970 0.987 0.978
FreeBayes 3,021,814 7544 48,477 3899 0.984 0.998 0.991
Longranger 3,026,384 2974 104,879 1799 0.967 0.999 0.983
L5 + L6 (NA 24385) Aquila 2,971,237 58,120 81,926 18,856 0.973 0.981 0.977

The benchmark is GiaB v3.3.2. Variant counts and performance scores were generated by RTGtools/hap.py. Longranger calls were executed with “-vcmode = gatk”. For final SNP calling, Aquila combines mapping-based calls from FreeBayes with its assembly-based calls. L5 + L6 can be achieved by Aquila through a multiple-library assembly mode, which is not applicable for other tools.