ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Benchmarking copy number variation detection with low-coverage whole-genome sequencing.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A targeted circulating tumor DNA landscape of copy number aberrations in large B-cell lymphomas.Leukemia · 2026Article
- Sensitive detection of copy number alterations in low-pass liquid biopsy sequencing data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-coverage whole-genome sequencing (lcWGS) provides a cost-effective method for genome-wide copy number variation (CNV) profiling, yet its technical limitations and analytical variability require systematic evaluation. We benchmarked five CNV detection tools using simulated and real-world datasets, focusing on sequencing depth, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) artifacts, tumor purity, multi-center reproducibility, and signature-level stability. Our results demonstrate that ichorCNA outperformed other tools in precision and runtime at high purity (≥50%), making it the optimal choice for lcWGS-based workflows. Prolonged FFPE fixation induced artifactual short-segment CNVs due to formalin-driven DNA fragmentation, a bias none of the tools could computationally correct, necessitating strict fixation time control or prioritization of fresh-frozen samples. Multi-center analysis revealed high reproducibility for the same tool across sequencing facilities, but comparisons between different tools showed low concordance. Copy number features extracted by the Wang et al. method exhibited superior stability across conditions compared with the Steele et al. method and the Tao et al. method. This study establishes actionable guidelines for lcWGS: prioritize ichorCNA (ensuring ≥50% tumor purity), optimize FFPE protocol, and use Wang et al. features to ensure robust copy number profiling in precision oncology.
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.