Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41540396›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2026

Benchmarking long-read variant calling in diploid and polyploid genomes: insights from human and plants.

Yoshinori Fukasawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Yoshinori FukasawaCenter for Bioscience Research and Education, Utsunomiya University, Tochigi, Japan. yoshinori.fukasawa@a.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI Grant Number 23K19338Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Utsunomiya University Strawberry Project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate characterization of genetic variation is fundamental to genomics. While long-read sequencing technologies promise to resolve complex genomic regions and improve variant detection, their application in complex genomes has not been well validated. Here, we systematically investigate the factors influencing variant calling accuracy using accurate long reads. Using human trio data with known variants to simulate variable ploidy levels (diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid), we demonstrate that while variant sites can often be identified accurately, genotyping accuracy decreases with increasing ploidy due to allelic dosage uncertainty. This highlights a specific challenge in assigning correct allele counts in polyploids even with high depth, separate from the initial variant discovery. We then assessed genotyping and variant detection performance in real genomes with varying complexity: the relatively simple diploid Fragaria vesca, the tetraploid Solanum tuberosum, and the highly repetitive diploid Zea mays. Our results reveal that overall variant calling accuracy is influenced strongly by inherent genome complexity (e.g., repeat content). Furthermore, we identify a critical mechanism impacting variant discovery: structural variations between the reference and sample genomes, particularly those containing repetitive elements, can induce spurious read mapping. This effect is likely exacerbated by the length and accuracy of long reads. This leads to false variant calls, constituting a distinct and more dominant source of error than allelic-dosage uncertainty. Our findings underscore the multifaceted challenges in long-read variant analysis and highlight the need for ploidy-aware genotypers and bias-aware mapping strategies to fully realize the potential of long reads in diverse organisms.

Indexed as

DiploidyGenetic VariationGenome, PlantGenomicsPolyploidyBenchmarkingFragariaHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSolanum tuberosumZea maysAllelic dosageBenchmarkingGenome complexityGenotypingLong-read sequencingPangenomePolyploidyPresence/absence variationReference biasVariant calling

Identifiers

PMID41540396
PMCPMC12809965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.