ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Benchmark for simple and complex genome inversions.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Inversions represent a consequential yet under-characterized form of structural variation, with roles in genomic disorders, evolution, and genome instability. However, their detection remains technically challenging, particularly within repeat-dense regions and for complex multi-breakpoint events. A lack of dedicated, high-quality benchmarks has hindered algorithmic improvement, performance comparison, and robust biological interpretation. Results: Here, we present a comprehensive, multi-genome benchmark for simple and complex inversions derived from Strand-seq and phased long-read based assemblies across five reference samples, with breakpoint refinement using haplotype-resolved long-read assemblies. This tiered resource spans a broad spectrum of inversion classes, sizes, and zygosity states, and captures challenging genomic contexts including segmental duplications, inverted repeats, and composite rearrangements. We used this benchmark to systematically assess leading structural variant callers and alignment strategies across short-read, PacBio HiFi, and Oxford Nanopore data. Performance varied substantially by inversion class and genomic context: simple inversions were recovered with high sensitivity at sufficient coverage, whereas complex and heterozygous events remained difficult. Sniffles2 and Severus achieved the strongest recall for complex inversions, despite increased false-positive rates. We additionally benchmarked two commonly used long-read alignment pipelines (Minimap2 and VACmap), demonstrating that the mapper choice has a substantial impact on inversion detection in repetitive regions. Conclusion: Together, this work provides the first unified, high-resolution inversion benchmark and reveals clear strengths and limitations of current methods across platforms. Our resource establishes a foundation for principled tool development, evaluation, and tuning, enabling the community to more accurately resolve inversion variation and its biological and clinical consequences.
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.