ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2025
Long-read structural and epigenetic profiling of a kidney tumor-matched sample with nanopore sequencing and optical genome mapping.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2025. 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.
- Complementarity of Long-Reads and Optical Mapping in Parkinson's Disease for Structural Variants.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Optical genome mapping as a diagnostic tool for unsolved balanced translocations in couples with adverse pregnancy outcomes: a case series.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Article
- Write and Read: Harnessing Synthetic DNA Modifications for Nanopore Sequencing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Carcinogenesis often involves significant alterations in the cancer genome, marked by large structural variants (SVs) and copy number variations (CNVs) that are difficult to capture with short-read sequencing. Traditionally, cytogenetic techniques are applied to detect such aberrations, but they are limited in resolution and do not cover features smaller than several hundred kilobases. Optical genome mapping (OGM) and nanopore sequencing [Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT)] bridge this resolution gap and offer enhanced performance for cytogenetic applications. Additionally, both methods can capture epigenetic information as they profile native, individual DNA molecules. We compared the effectiveness of the two methods in characterizing the structural, copy number and epigenetic landscape of a clear cell renal cell carcinoma tumor. Both methods provided comparable results for basic karyotyping and CNVs, but differed in their ability to detect SVs of different sizes and types. ONT outperformed OGM in detecting small SVs, while OGM excelled in detecting larger SVs, including translocations. Differences were also observed among various ONT SV callers. Additionally, both methods provided insights into the tumor's methylome and hydroxymethylome. While ONT was superior in methylation calling, hydroxymethylation reports can be further optimized. Our findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting the most appropriate platform based on specific research questions.
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.