Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38500526›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

The impact of FASTQ and alignment read order on structural variant calling from long-read sequencing data.

Kyle J Lesack, James D Wasmuth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Kyle J LesackFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
James D WasmuthFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9516-212X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsGenomicsDNAGenomeSequence Analysis, DNADNAResearch reproducibilityResearch robustnessSensitivity analysisStructural variation

Identifiers

PMID38500526
PMCPMC10946394

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.