ReviewNAR genomics and bioinformatics2026
Evolutionary and methodological considerations when interpreting gene presence-absence variation in pangenomes.
Review in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- European ash pangenome reveals widespread structural variation and genetic basis of low ash dieback susceptibility.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The Rise of Plant Pan-Genomes: From Genome Variation to Predictive Breeding.Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Structure and sequence evolution in the pennycress (Thlaspi arvense) pangenome.The New phytologist · 2026Article
- The potential of wheat spatial omics.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- From structural pangenomes to functional panomics in plants.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While graph-based pangenomes have become a standard and interoperable foundation for comparisons across multiple reference genomes, integrating protein-coding gene annotations across pangenomes in a single 'pangene set' remains challenging, both because of methodological inconsistency and biological presence-absence variation (PAV). Here, we review and experimentally evaluate the root of genome annotation and pangene set inconsistency using two polyploid plant pangenomes: cotton and soybean, which were chosen because of their existing diverse high-quality genomic resources and the known importance of gene PAV in their respective breeding programs. We first demonstrate that building pangene sets across different genome resources is highly error prone: PAV calculated directly from the genome annotations hosted on public repositories recapitulates structure in annotation methods and not biological sequence differences. Re-annotation of all genomes with a single identical pipeline largely resolves the broadest stroke issues; however, substantial challenges remain, including a surprisingly common case where exactly identical sequences have different gene model structural annotations. Combined, these results clearly show that pangenome gene model annotations must be carefully integrated before any biological inference can be made regarding sequence evolution, gene copy-number, or PAV.
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.