Comparison between the mutational analyses performed with the MuTect and SomaticSniper bioinformatics pipelines in 133 AMLs.^9,10  (A) The same 133 AML samples were analyzed by WES and subsequently by MuTect⁷  or SomaticSniper⁶  bioinformatics pipelines: for every patient, the number of mutations identified with the 2 methods is reported on the x (SomaticSniper) and y (MuTect) axes; red points correspond to outliers (patients having a very high number of mutations in 1 or both methods). The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated for all samples (r = 0.08) or after removal of the outliers (r = 0.3). Both r values indicate a significant discordance between the 2 methods. The black dashed trend line indicates the expected number of identified mutations assuming that the analysis with the 2 pipelines gives exactly the same results. (B) For both methods, the percentage of mutations for every possible base change is reported. We considered both the complete set of patients and the set after outlier removal (no Outliers). The different distributions of the various types of mutations indicate that the 2 methods of analysis describe 2 different mutational landscapes for the same 133 AML patients.