ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2021
Comparative Analysis for the Performance of Long-Read-Based Structural Variation Detection Pipelines in Tandem Repeat Regions.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping structural variants to rare disease genes using long-read whole genome sequencing and trait-relevant polygenic scores.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Advancing genomic technologies and clinical awareness accelerates discovery of disease-associated tandem repeat sequences.Genome research · 2022Review
- Is an SV caller compatible with sequencing data? An online recommendation tool to automatically recommend the optimal caller based on data features.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been growing recognition of the vital links between structural variations (SVs) and diverse diseases. Research suggests that, with much longer DNA fragments and abundant contextual information, long-read technologies have advantages in SV detection even in complex repetitive regions. So far, several pipelines for calling SVs from long-read sequencing data have been proposed and used in human genome research. However, the performance of these pipelines is still lack of deep exploration and adequate comparison. In this study, we comprehensively evaluated the performance of three commonly used long-read SV detection pipelines, namely PBSV, Sniffles and PBHoney, especially the performance on detecting the SVs in tandem repeat regions (TRRs). Evaluated by using a robust benchmark for germline SV detection as the gold standard, we thoroughly estimated the precision, recall and F1 score of insertions and deletions detected by the pipelines. Our results revealed that all these pipelines clearly exhibited better performance outside TRRs than that in TRRs. The F1 scores of Sniffles in and outside TRRs were 0.60 and 0.76, respectively. The performance of PBSV was similar to that of Sniffles, and was generally higher than that of PBHoney. In conclusion, our findings can be benefit for choosing the appropriate pipelines in real practice and are good complementary to the application of long-read sequencing technologies in the research of rare diseases.
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.