ArticleBMC genomics2021
Evaluation of tools for identifying large copy number variations from ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing data.
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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational strategies for copy number variation detection, disease association, and beyond.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Genome-Wide Analysis of Copy Number Variation in Vietnamese Local Chickens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Quantifying rate-limiting genetic variation in breast and ovarian tumourigenesis.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- ZIPcnv: accurate and efficient inference of copy number variations from shallow whole-genome sequencing.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Benchmarking copy number variation detection with low-coverage whole-genome sequencing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Feasibility of long-read sequencing to identify molecular alterations in an Indonesian cohort of locally advanced to advanced nasopharyngeal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessment of Functional Status of Human Leukocyte Antigen Class I Genes in Cancer Tissues in the Context of Personalized Neoantigen Peptide Vaccine Immunotherapy.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- LYCEUM: learning to call copy number variants on low-coverage ancient genomes.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- GCfix: a fast and accurate fragment length-specific method for correcting GC bias in cell-free DNA.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- EMcnv: enhancing CNV detection performance through ensemble strategies with heterogeneous meta-graph neural networks.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Circulating tumor DNA laboratory processes and clinical applications in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- SAMURAI: shallow analysis of copy number alterations using a reproducible and integrated bioinformatics pipeline.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- AcornHRD: an HRD algorithm highly associated with anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer in China.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Novel liquid biopsy CNV biomarkers in malignant melanoma.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Mutational spectrum of breast cancer by shallow whole-genome sequencing of cfDNA and tumor gene panel analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Circulating Nucleic Acids in Colorectal Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Value.Disease markers · 2024Review
- Karyotyping of aneuploid and polyploid plants from low coverage whole-genome resequencing.BMC plant biology · 2023Article
- Lessons learnt, and still to learn, in first in human stem cell trials.Stem cell reports · 2023Review
- Identification of copy number variants with genome sequencing: Clinical experiences from the NYCKidSeq program.Clinical genetics · 2023Article
- CNETML: maximum likelihood inference of phylogeny from copy number profiles of multiple samples.Genome biology · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.