ArticleViruses2024
Combining Short- and Long-Read Sequencing Technologies to Identify SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Wastewater.
Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Short-Read and Long-Read Whole Genome Sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 Variants Identification.Viruses · 2025Article
- Hydrological and physicochemical parameters associated with SARS-CoV-2 and pepper mild mottle virus wastewater concentrations for a large-combined sewer system.Journal of water and health · 2025Article
- Long-Read Sequencing for the Rapid Response to Infectious Diseases Outbreaks.Current clinical microbiology reports · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Utility of Nanopore Sequencing for Tuberculous Serous Effusions.Infection and drug resistance · 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater was used to track the evolution and emergence of variant lineages and gauge infection levels in the community, informing appropriate public health responses without relying solely on clinical testing. As more sublineages were discovered, it increased the difficulty in identifying distinct variants in a mixed population sample, particularly those without a known lineage. Here, we compare the sequencing technology from Illumina and from Oxford Nanopore Technologies, in order to determine their efficacy at detecting variants of differing abundance, using 248 wastewater samples from various Quebec and Ontario cities. Our study used two analytical approaches to identify the main variants in the samples: the presence of signature and marker mutations and the co-occurrence of signature mutations within the same amplicon. We observed that each sequencing method detected certain variants at different frequencies as each method preferentially detects mutations of distinct variants. Illumina sequencing detected more mutations with a predominant lineage that is in low abundance across the population or unknown for that time period, while Nanopore sequencing had a higher detection rate of mutations that are predominantly found in the high abundance B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage as well as a higher sequencing rate of co-occurring mutations in the same amplicon. We present a workflow that integrates short-read and long-read sequencing to improve the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variant lineages in mixed population samples, such as wastewater.
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.