ArticleJournal of medical virology2024
Analytical Performance of a Novel Nanopore Sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological Assessment of High-Throughput Sequencing Platforms: Illumina vs. MGI in Clinical-GradeInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Nanopore sequencing in veterinary medicine: from concepts to clinical applications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Global trends in the application of nanopore sequencing technology in the detection of infectious disease pathogens: a bibliometric analysis from 2014 to 2024.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 has served as a crucial tool for generating invaluable data that fulfils both epidemiological and clinical necessities. Long-read sequencing technology (e.g., ONT) has been widely used, providing a real-time and faster response when necessitated. A novel nanopore-based long-read sequencing platform named QNome nanopore has been successfully used for bacterial genome sequencing and assembly; however, its performance in the SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance is still lacking. Synthetic SARS-CoV-2 controls and 120 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples that tested positive by real-time polymerase chain reaction were sequenced on both QNome and MGI platforms in parallel. The analytical performance of QNome was compared to the short-read sequencing on MGI. For the synthetic SARS-CoV-2 controls, despite the increased error rates observed in QNome nanopore sequencing reads, accurate consensus-level sequence determination was achieved with an average mapping quality score of approximately 60 (i.e., a mapping accuracy of 99.9999%). For the NPS samples, the average genomic coverage was 89.35% on the QNome nanopore platform compared with 90.39% for MGI. In addition, fewer consensus genomes from QNome were determined to be good by Nextclade compare with MGI (p < 0.05). A total of 9004 mutations were identified using QNome sequencing, with substitutions being the most prevalent, in contrast, 10 997 mutations were detected on MGI (p < 0.05). Furthermore, 23 large deletions (i.e., deletions≥ 10 bp) were identified by QNome while 19/23 were supported by evidence from short-read sequencing. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the Pango lineage of consensus genomes for SARS-CoV-2 sequenced by QNome concorded 83.04% with MGI. QNome nanopore sequencing, though challenged by read quality and accuracy compared to MGI, is overcoming these issues through bioinformatics and computational advances. The advantage of structure variation (SV) detection capabilities and real-time data analysis renders it a promising alternative nanopore platform for the surveillance of the SARS-CoV-2.
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.