ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2025
Comparative analysis of hybrid-SNP microarray and nanopore sequencing for detection of large-sized copy number variants in the human genome.
Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computational strategies for copy number variation detection, disease association, and beyond.Genome biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNanopore sequencing is a technology that holds great promise for identifying all types of human genome variations, particularly structural variations. In this work, we used nanopore sequencing technology to sequence 2 human cell lines at low depth of coverage to call copy number variations (CNV), and compared the results variant by variant with chromosomal microarray (CMA) results.
resultsWe analysed sequencing data using CuteSV and Sniffles2 variant callers, compared breakpoints based on hybrid-SNP microarray, nanopore sequencing and Sanger sequencing, and analysed CNV coverage. From a total of 48 high confidence variants (truth set), variant calling detected 79% of the truth set variants, increasing to 86% for interstitial CNV. Simultaneous use of the 2 callers slightly increased variant calling. Both callers performed better when calling CNV losses than gains. Variant sizes from CMA and nanopore sequencing showed an excellent correlation, with breakpoints determined by nanopore sequencing differing by only 20 base pairs on average from Sanger sequencing. Nanopore sequencing also revealed that four variants concealed genomic inversions undetectable by CMA. In the 10 CNV not called in nanopore sequencing, 8 showed coverage evidence of genomic loss or gain, highlighting the need to improve SV calling algorithms performance.
conclusionsNanopore sequencing offers advantages over CMA for structural variant detection, including the identification of multiple variant types and their breakpoints with increased precision. However, further improvements in variant calling algorithms are still needed for nanopore sequencing to become a highly robust and standardized approach for a comprehensive analysis of genomic structural variation.
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.