ArticleBMC genomics2022
Comprehensive evaluation of structural variant genotyping methods based on long-read sequencing data.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- European ash pangenome reveals widespread structural variation and genetic basis of low ash dieback susceptibility.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of structural variation detection for germline and somatic analysis with long-read sequencing data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Long-read based detection of large copy number variants with potential functional significance using the ContextSV structural variant caller.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Molecular QTL are enriched for structural variants in a cattle long-read cohort.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Interlaboratory evaluation of high molecular weight DNA extraction methods for long-read sequencing and structural variant analysis.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Long read Nanopore sequencing identifies precise breakpoints of a de novo paracentric inversion that disrupt the MEIS2 gene in a Chinese girl with syndromic developmental delay.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Fitness consequences of structural variation inferred from a House Finch pangenome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Comprehensive and deep evaluation of structural variation detection pipelines with third-generation sequencing data.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Review
- SVhawkeye: an ultra-fast software for user-friendly visualization of targeted structural fragments from BAM files.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- SVJedi-graph: improving the genotyping of close and overlapping structural variants with long reads using a variation graph.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Comparison of structural variants detected by PacBio-CLR and ONT sequencing in pear.BMC genomics · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.