ArticleGenome research2024
Small polymorphisms are a source of ancestral bias in structural variant breakpoint placement.
Article in Genome research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building and applying pangenome references to capture genetic diversity.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Comprehensive benchmarking of somatic structural variant detection at ultra-low allele fractions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The nature of complex structural variations in tomatoes.Horticulture research · 2025Article
- Pairwise graph edit distance characterizes the impact of the construction method on pangenome graphs.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Review
- K-mer analysis of long-read alignment pileups for structural variant genotyping.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Analysis and benchmarking of small and large genomic variants across tandem repeats.Nature biotechnology · 2025Article
- K-mer analysis of long-read alignment pileups for structural variant genotyping.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-quality genome assemblies and sophisticated algorithms have increased sensitivity for a wide range of variant types, and breakpoint accuracy for structural variants (SVs, ≥50 bp) has improved to near base pair precision. Despite these advances, many SV breakpoint locations are subject to systematic bias affecting variant representation. To understand why SV breakpoints are inconsistent across samples, we reanalyzed 64 phased haplotypes constructed from long-read assemblies released by the Human Genome Structural Variation Consortium (HGSVC). We identify 882 SV insertions and 180 SV deletions with variable breakpoints not anchored in tandem repeats (TRs) or segmental duplications (SDs). SVs called from aligned sequencing reads increase breakpoint disagreements by 2×-16×. Sequence accuracy had a minimal impact on breakpoints, but we observe a strong effect of ancestry. We confirm that SNP and indel polymorphisms are enriched at shifted breakpoints and are also absent from variant callsets. Breakpoint homology increases the likelihood of imprecise SV calls and the distance they are shifted, and tandem duplications are the most heavily affected SVs. Because graph genome methods normalize SV calls across samples, we investigated graphs generated by two different methods and find the resulting breakpoints are subject to other technical biases affecting breakpoint accuracy. The breakpoint inconsistencies we characterize affect ∼5% of the SVs called in a human genome and can impact variant interpretation and annotation. These limitations underscore a need for algorithm development to improve SV databases, mitigate the impact of ancestry on breakpoints, and increase the value of callsets for investigating breakpoint features.
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.