ArticleBMC genomics2020
Comparison of multiple algorithms to reliably detect structural variants in pears.
Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic benchmarking of tools for structural variation detection using short- and long-read sequencing data in pigs.iScience · 2025Article
- A multiomic characterization of the leukemia cell line REH using short- and long-read sequencing.Life science alliance · 2024Article
- De Novo Structural Variations of Escherichia coli Detected by Nanopore Long-Read Sequencing.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Comparison of structural variants detected by PacBio-CLR and ONT sequencing in pear.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Structural variants in the barley gene pool: precision and sensitivity to detect them using short-read sequencing and their association with gene expression and phenotypic variation.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022Article
- Structural variants and tandem repeats in the founder individuals of four FBMC genomics · 2022Article
- From molecules to genomic variations: Accelerating genome analysis via intelligent algorithms and architectures.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Review
- Population Genomic Sequencing Delineates Global Landscape of Copy Number Variations that Drive Domestication and Breed Formation of in Chicken.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Comprehensive analysis of structural variants in chickens using PacBio sequencing.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Deciphering complex genome rearrangements in C. elegans using short-read whole genome sequencing.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Genome sequences of Tropheus moorii and Petrochromis trewavasae, two eco-morphologically divergent cichlid fishes endemic to Lake Tanganyika.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStructural variations (SVs) have been reported to play an important role in genetic diversity and trait regulation. Many computer algorithms detecting SVs have recently been developed, but the use of multiple algorithms to detect high-confidence SVs has not been studied. The most suitable sequencing depth for detecting SVs in pear is also not known.
resultsIn this study, a pipeline to detect SVs using next-generation and long-read sequencing data was constructed. The performances of seven types of SV detection software using next-generation sequencing (NGS) data and two types of software using long-read sequencing data (SVIM and Sniffles), which are based on different algorithms, were compared. Of the nine software packages evaluated, SVIM identified the most SVs, and Sniffles detected SVs with the highest accuracy (> 90%). When the results from multiple SV detection tools were combined, the SVs identified by both MetaSV and IMR/DENOM, which use NGS data, were more accurate than those identified by both SVIM and Sniffles, with mean accuracies of 98.7 and 96.5%, respectively. The software packages using long-read sequencing data required fewer CPU cores and less memory and ran faster than those using NGS data. In addition, according to the performances of assembly-based algorithms using NGS data, we found that a sequencing depth of 50× is appropriate for detecting SVs in the pear genome.
conclusionThis study provides strong evidence that more than one SV detection software package, each based on a different algorithm, should be used to detect SVs with higher confidence, and that long-read sequencing data are better than NGS data for SV detection. The SV detection pipeline that we have established will facilitate the study of diversity in other crops.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.