ArticlePeerJ2024
The impact of FASTQ and alignment read order on structural variant calling from long-read sequencing data.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From ideal to practical: Heterogeneity of student-generated variant lists highlights hidden reproducibility gaps.PLoS computational biology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Structural variant (SV) calling from DNA sequencing data has been challenging due to several factors, including the ambiguity of short-read alignments, multiple complex SVs in the same genomic region, and the lack of "truth" datasets for benchmarking. Additionally, caller choice, parameter settings, and alignment method are known to affect SV calling. However, the impact of FASTQ read order on SV calling has not been explored for long-read data. Results: Here, we used PacBio DNA sequencing data from 15 Conclusion: The results of this study highlight the sensitivity of SV calling on the order of reads encoded in FASTQ files, which has not been recognized in long-read approaches. These findings have implications for the replication of SV studies and the development of consistent SV calling protocols. Our study suggests that researchers should pay attention to the input order sensitivity of read alignment sorting methods when analyzing long-read sequencing data for SV calling, as mitigating a source of variability could facilitate future replication work. These results also raise important questions surrounding the relationship between SV caller read order sensitivity and tool performance. Therefore, tool developers should also consider input order sensitivity as a potential source of variability during the development and benchmarking of new and improved methods for SV calling.
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.