ArticleBMC genomics2026
Benchmarking long-read variant calling in diploid and polyploid genomes: insights from human and plants.
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.
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.
- Long-read based detection of large copy number variants with potential functional significance using the ContextSV structural variant caller.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Pan-genomics of polyploid crops: from complexity to breeding.Frontiers in plant science · 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
1 author.
Funding
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
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.