Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40082509›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Benchmarking long-read structural variant calling tools and combinations for detecting somatic variants in cancer genomes.

Safa Kerem Aydin, Kubra Celikbas Yilmaz, Ahmet Acar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Research evolution of flat peach (Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

3 authors.

Safa Kerem AydinDepartment of Biological Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulvarı 1, 06800, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Kubra Celikbas YilmazDepartment of Biological Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulvarı 1, 06800, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Ahmet AcarDepartment of Biological Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulvarı 1, 06800, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey. acara@metu.edu.tr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genome, HumanGenomic Structural VariationNeoplasmsBenchmarkingCell Line, TumorGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMutationCancer genomicsLong-read sequencingSomatic structural variantsSV calling toolsTool benchmarkingWhole-genome sequencing data

Identifiers

PMID40082509
PMCPMC11906795

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.