ArticleCancers2021
Comparison of Structural and Short Variants Detected by Linked-Read and Whole-Exome Sequencing in Multiple Myeloma.
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal variants in animal genomes: approaches to identification, phenotypic impact, and implications for selective breeding.BMC genomics · 2026Review
- Next-Generation Biomarkers in Multiple Myeloma: Advancing Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Precision Therapy Beyond Current Guidelines.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Metabolic stress in space: ROS-induced mutations in mice hint at a new path to cancer.Redox biology · 2024Article
- Integrating Optical Genome Mapping and Whole Genome Sequencing in Somatic Structural Variant Detection.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Haplotype information of large neuromuscular disease genes provided by linked-read sequencing has a potential to increase diagnostic yield.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- S100 Calcium Binding Protein Family Members Associate With Poor Patient Outcome and Response to Proteasome Inhibition in Multiple Myeloma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Linked-read sequencing was developed to aid the detection of large structural variants (SVs) from short-read sequencing efforts. We performed a systematic evaluation to determine if linked-read exome sequencing provides more comprehensive and clinically relevant information than whole-exome sequencing (WES) when applied to the same set of multiple myeloma patient samples. We report that linked-read sequencing detected a higher number of SVs (n = 18,455) than WES (n = 4065). However, linked-read predictions were dominated by inversions (92.4%), leading to poor detection of other types of SVs. In contrast, WES detected 56.3% deletions, 32.6% insertions, 6.7% translocations, 3.3% duplications and 1.2% inversions. Surprisingly, the quantitative performance assessment suggested a higher performance for WES (AUC = 0.791) compared to linked-read sequencing (AUC = 0.766) for detecting clinically validated cytogenetic alterations. We also found that linked-read sequencing detected more short variants (n = 704) compared to WES (n = 109). WES detected somatic mutations in all MM-related genes while linked-read sequencing failed to detect certain mutations. The comparison of somatic mutations detected using linked-read, WES and RNA-seq revealed that WES and RNA-seq detected more mutations than linked-read sequencing. These data indicate that WES outperforms and is more efficient than linked-read sequencing for detecting clinically relevant SVs and MM-specific short variants.
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.