ArticleJournal of medical virology2025
Performance of Long-Read Single-Molecule Real-Time Sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 Genotyping in Clinical Samples.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to the continuous genetic evolution of SARS-CoV-2, numerous variants have emerged and different whole genome sequencing techniques, necessary for accurate virus typing, have been developed. In this study, we evaluated the performance of PacBio single-molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 typing. Reproducibility was assessed on two internal quality controls, whose median reading depths were 1154X and 1059X. The overall sensitivity on 1646 clinical samples collected between January 2023 and June 2024 was 83.6% and was correlated to the viral load. By comparison, the overall sensitivity of short-read illumina sequencing over the same period of time on 271 samples was 90.8%. Although less sensitive, SMRT sequencing was more efficient for the identification of the two lineages in a co-infection case due to the amplification of long fragments. Comparing the results obtained by the two techniques, 10 out of 50 samples were identified with the same clade but not the exact same lineage at the time of analysis, because of the very frequent updates of the Pango taxonomy. Nevertheless, we obtained very similar fasta consensus sequences with a maximum difference of 4 nucleotides, showing that both methods provide accurate typing of SARS-CoV-2, useful for epidemiological or clinical studies.
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.