Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34000988›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2021

Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data.

Johannes Smolander, Sofia Khan, Kalaimathy Singaravelu, Leni Kauko, Riikka J Lund, Asta Laiho, Laura L Elo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Genome-Wide Analysis of Copy Number Variation in Vietnamese Local Chickens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes SmolanderTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Sofia KhanTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Kalaimathy SingaraveluTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Leni KaukoTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Riikka J LundTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Asta LaihoTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Laura L EloTurku Bioscience Centre, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, 20520, Turku, Finland. laura.elo@utu.fi.
Åbo Akademi University · FITurku Centre for Computer Science · FIUniversity of Turku · FI

Funding

European Research Council 677943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection of copy number variations (CNVs) from high-throughput next-generation whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data has become a widely used research method during the recent years. However, only a little is known about the applicability of the developed algorithms to ultra-low-coverage (0.0005-0.8×) data that is used in various research and clinical applications, such as digital karyotyping and single-cell CNV detection.

resultHere, the performance of six popular read-depth based CNV detection algorithms (BIC-seq2, Canvas, CNVnator, FREEC, HMMcopy, and QDNAseq) was studied using ultra-low-coverage WGS data. Real-world array- and karyotyping kit-based validation were used as a benchmark in the evaluation. Additionally, ultra-low-coverage WGS data was simulated to investigate the ability of the algorithms to identify CNVs in the sex chromosomes and the theoretical minimum coverage at which these tools can accurately function. Our results suggest that while all the methods were able to detect large CNVs, many methods were susceptible to producing false positives when smaller CNVs (< 2 Mbp) were detected. There was also significant variability in their ability to identify CNVs in the sex chromosomes. Overall, BIC-seq2 was found to be the best method in terms of statistical performance. However, its significant drawback was by far the slowest runtime among the methods (> 3 h) compared with FREEC (~ 3 min), which we considered the second-best method.

conclusionsOur comparative analysis demonstrates that CNV detection from ultra-low-coverage WGS data can be a highly accurate method for the detection of large copy number variations when their length is in millions of base pairs. These findings facilitate applications that utilize ultra-low-coverage CNV detection.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingAlgorithmsWhole Genome SequencingCopy number variationHuman embryonic stem cellUltra-low-coverageWhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID34000988
PMCPMC8130438
OpenAlexW3162783973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.