ArticleScientific reports2025
Benchmarking long-read structural variant calling tools and combinations for detecting somatic variants in cancer genomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research evolution of flat peach (Frontiers in plant science · 2025Pooled it
- Long-read based detection of large copy number variants with potential functional significance using the ContextSV structural variant caller.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of structural variation detection for germline and somatic analysis with long-read sequencing data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- nf-core/pacsomatic: a scalable somatic analytic pipeline using PacBio HiFi data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Untangling the Copy Number Variation at the Basis of Belted Phenotypes in Cattle Using Long-Read Sequencing.Animal genetics · 2026Article
- Donor-specific assemblies enhance somatic structural variant detection in complex genomic regions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Benchmarking major somatic structural variant callers on the HG008 genome.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Challenges in the detection and assembly of virus integration structures in human genomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Long read sequencing reveals novel genomic and epigenomic alterations in repetitive regions of high grade serous ovarian cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Long-Read Sequencing and Structural Variant Detection: Unlocking the Hidden Genome in Rare Genetic Disorders.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Patient-derived tumor organoids: advances, applications, and future directions in biomedical research.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer genomes have a complicated landscape of mutations, including large-scale rearrangements known as structural variants (SVs). These SVs can disrupt genes or regulatory elements, playing a critical role in cancer development and progression. Despite their importance, accurate identification of somatic structural variants (SVs) remains a significant bottleneck in cancer genomics. Long-read sequencing technologies hold great promise in SV discovery, and there is an increasing number of efforts to develop new tools to detect them. In this study, we employ eight widely used SV callers on paired tumor and matched normal samples from both the NCI-H2009 lung cancer cell line and the COLO829 melanoma cell line, the latter of which has a well-established somatic SV truth set. Following separate variation detection in both tumor and normal DNA, the VCF merging procedure and a subtraction method were used to identify candidate somatic SVs. Additionally, we explored different combinations of the tools to enhance the accuracy of true somatic SV detection. Our analysis adopts a comprehensive approach, evaluating the performance of each SV caller across a spectrum of variant types and numbers in finding cancer-related somatic SVs. This study, by comparing eight different tools and their combinations, not only reveals the benefits and limitations of various techniques but also establishes a framework for developing more robust SV calling pipelines. Our findings highlight the strengths and weaknesses of current SV calling tools and suggest that combining multiple tools and testing different combinations can significantly enhance the validation of somatic alterations.
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.