Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35461238›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2022

Comprehensive evaluation of structural variant genotyping methods based on long-read sequencing data.

Xiaoke Duan, Mingpei Pan, Shaohua Fan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fitness consequences of structural variation inferred from a House Finch pangenome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaoke DuanState Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Human Phenome Institute, Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Mingpei PanState Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Human Phenome Institute, Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Shaohua FanState Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Human Phenome Institute, Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China. shaohua_fan@fudan.edu.cn.
Fudan University · CN

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China 2020YFE0201600National Natural Science Foundation of China 31970563Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 19410741100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructural variants (SVs) play a crucial role in gene regulation, trait association, and disease in humans. SV genotyping has been extensively applied in genomics research and clinical diagnosis. Although a growing number of SV genotyping methods for long reads have been developed, a comprehensive performance assessment of these methods has yet to be done.

resultsBased on one simulated and three real SV datasets, we performed an in-depth evaluation of five SV genotyping methods, including cuteSV, LRcaller, Sniffles, SVJedi, and VaPoR. The results show that for insertions and deletions, cuteSV and LRcaller have similar F1 scores (cuteSV, insertions: 0.69-0.90, deletions: 0.77-0.90 and LRcaller, insertions: 0.67-0.87, deletions: 0.74-0.91) and are superior to other methods. For duplications, inversions, and translocations, LRcaller yields the most accurate genotyping results (0.84, 0.68, and 0.47, respectively). When genotyping SVs located in tandem repeat region or with imprecise breakpoints, cuteSV (insertions and deletions) and LRcaller (duplications, inversions, and translocations) are better than other methods. In addition, we observed a decrease in F1 scores when the SV size increased. Finally, our analyses suggest that the F1 scores of these methods reach the point of diminishing returns at 20× depth of coverage.

conclusionsWe present an in-depth benchmark study of long-read SV genotyping methods. Our results highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each genotyping method, which provide practical guidance for optimal application selection and prospective directions for tool improvement.

Indexed as

GenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingGenomic Structural VariationGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesHumansProspective StudiesSequence Analysis, DNAF1 scoreLong-read sequencingPerformance evaluationSV genotyping

Identifiers

PMID35461238
PMCPMC9034514
OpenAlexW4224441463

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.