Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39415108›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

Comprehensive evaluation and guidance of structural variation detection tools in chicken whole genome sequence data.

Cheng Ma, Xian Shi, Xuzhen Li, Ya-Ping Zhang, Min-Sheng Peng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Ultrarapid MC1R protein and associated plumage color evolution in the domestic chicken.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Research Progress on Genetic Factors of Poultry Egg Quality: A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors.

Cheng Ma *Key Laboratory of Genetic Evolution & Animal Models and Yunnan Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Xian Shi *Key Laboratory of Genetic Evolution & Animal Models and Yunnan Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Xuzhen Li *State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, 650201, China.
Ya-Ping ZhangKey Laboratory of Genetic Evolution & Animal Models and Yunnan Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China. zhangyp@mail.kiz.ac.cn.
Min-Sheng PengKey Laboratory of Genetic Evolution & Animal Models and Yunnan Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China. pengminsheng@mail.kiz.ac.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31771405the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program (STEP) 2019QZKK050the Spring City Plan: The High-level Talent Promotion and Training Project of Kunming 2022SCP001the Yunnan Provincial Science and Technology Department Grant 202001AU070099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructural variations (SVs) are widespread across genome and have a great impact on evolution, disease, and phenotypic diversity. Despite the development of numerous bioinformatic tools, commonly referred to as SV callers, tailored for detecting SVs using whole genome sequence (WGS) data and employing diverse algorithms, their performance necessitates rigorous evaluation with real data and validated SVs. Moreover, a considerable proportion of these tools have been primarily designed and optimized using human genome data. Consequently, their applicability and performance in Avian species, characterized by smaller genomes and distinct genomic architectures, remain inadequately assessed.

resultsWe performed a comprehensive assessment of the performance of ten widely used SV callers using population-level real genomic data with the validated five common types of SVs. The performance of SV callers varies with the types and sizes of SVs. As compared with other tools, GRIDSS, Lumpy, Wham, and Manta present better detection accuracy. Pindel can detect more small SVs than others. CNVnator and CNVkit can detect more medium and large copy number variations. Given the poor consistency among different SV callers, the combination calling strategy is not recommended. All tools show poor ability in the detection of insertions (especially with size > 150 bp). At least 50× read depth is required to detect more than 80% of the SVs for most tools.

conclusionsThis study highlights the importance and necessity of using real sequencing data, rather than simulated data only, with validated SVs for SV caller evaluation. Some practical guidance and suggestions are provided for SV detection in future researches.

Indexed as

ChickensWhole Genome SequencingAlgorithmsAnimalsComputational BiologyDNA Copy Number VariationsGenomeGenomicsGenomic Structural VariationSoftwareCopy number variationPopulation genomic sequenceRead depthStructural variationSV callerWGS

Identifiers

PMID39415108
PMCPMC11481438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.