ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Benchmarking strategies for CNV calling from whole genome bisulfite data in humans.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. 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.
- Computational strategies for copy number variation detection, disease association, and beyond.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Detection of known gene fusions in cancer cell lines using whole-genome bisulfite sequencing data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integrative Modeling of Read Depth and B-Allele Frequency Improves Single-Cell Copy Number Calling from Targeted DNA Sequencing Panels.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It's important to dissect the relationship between copy number variations (CNVs) and DNA methylation, because both greatly change the dosages of genes and are responsible for diverse human cancers. Although whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) informs CNVs and DNA methylation, no study has provided a systematic benchmark for detecting CNVs from WGBS data. Herein, based on simulated and real WGBS datasets of 84.62 billion reads, we undertook 714 CNV detections to comprehensively benchmark the performance of 35 strategies, 5 alignment algorithms (bismarkbt2, bsbolt, bsmap, bwameth, and walt) wrapping with 7 CNV detection applications (BreakDancer, cn.mops, CNVkit, CNVnator, DELLY, GASV and Pindel). The results highlighted a subset of strategies that accurately called CNVs depending on numbers, lengths, precision, recall, and F1 scores of CNV detections. We found that bwameth-DELLY and bwameth-BreakDancer were the best strategies for calling deletions, and walt-CNVnator and bismarkbt2-CNVnator were the best strategies for calling duplications. These works provided investigators with useful information to accurately explore CNVs from WGBS data in humans.
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.