ArticleBMC genomics2024
Comprehensive evaluation and guidance of structural variation detection tools in chicken whole genome sequence data.
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.
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.
- Integrated Analysis of SNPs and Structural Variations via High-depth Whole-genome Sequencing Reveals the Genetic Architecture and Optimizes Genomic Prediction in Chickens.Poultry science · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Research Progress on Genetic Factors of Poultry Egg Quality: A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Brain somatic mutations in Alzheimer's disease: linking genetic mosaicism to neurodegeneration.Molecular neurodegeneration · 2025Review
- Population genomic analysis identifies the complex structural variation at the fibromelanosis (FM) locus in chicken.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Structural variations in livestock genomes and their associations with phenotypic traits: a review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.