ArticleGenome biology and evolution2024
Calling Structural Variants with Confidence from Short-Read Data in Wild Bird Populations.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Range-Wide Genetic Population Structure and Environmental Adaptation in the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Provides Insight for Aquaculture.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Interchromosomal Translocations and Large Deletions Drive the Evolution of the Outlier Chromosome in the Smallest Photosynthetic Eukaryote.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Structural Genomic Variation and Its Potential Role in Deer Speciation.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Putting Structural Variants Into Practice: The Role of Chromosomal Inversions in the Management of Marine Environments.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- The contribution of transposable element insertions to genetic diversity inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The Landscape of Structural Variation in Aye-Ayes (Daubentonia madagascariensis).Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Comprehensive characterization of structural variation in natural populations has only become feasible in the last decade. To investigate the population genomic nature of structural variation, reproducible and high-confidence structural variation callsets are first required. We created a population-scale reference of the genome-wide landscape of structural variation across 33 Nordic house sparrows (Passer domesticus). To produce a consensus callset across all samples using short-read data, we compare heuristic-based quality filtering and visual curation (Samplot/PlotCritic and Samplot-ML) approaches. We demonstrate that curation of structural variants is important for reducing putative false positives and that the time invested in this step outweighs the potential costs of analyzing short-read-discovered structural variation data sets that include many potential false positives. We find that even a lenient manual curation strategy (e.g. applied by a single curator) can reduce the proportion of putative false positives by up to 80%, thus enriching the proportion of high-confidence variants. Crucially, in applying a lenient manual curation strategy with a single curator, nearly all (>99%) variants rejected as putative false positives were also classified as such by a more stringent curation strategy using three additional curators. Furthermore, variants rejected by manual curation failed to reflect the expected population structure from SNPs, whereas variants passing curation did. Combining heuristic-based quality filtering with rapid manual curation of structural variants in short-read data can therefore become a time- and cost-effective first step for functional and population genomic studies requiring high-confidence structural variation callsets.
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.