ArticleSerican journal of medicine2025
Long-Read Sequencing Outperforms Short-Read Sequencing in Detecting Most Structural Variations.
Article in Serican journal of medicine, 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.
- Long-read sequencing for neurological disorders: opportunities, challenges, and future directions.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Genomic Variability of the HCT116 Cell Line Identified Using Oxford Nanopore Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Structural variations (SV) are common in the cancer genome and play critical roles in regulating tumorigenesis. In the past decades, many SVs have been detected through analyses of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data generated mainly by Illumina paired-end short-read sequencing (SRS). Recent advances in long-read sequencing (LRS) techniques provide exciting opportunities for SV detection. However, a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons of LRS and SRS in detecting SVs in a cancer genome is still lacking. Here, we performed WGS of the LNCaP prostate cancer cell line through LRS using the Oxford Nanopore Technology and called main SVs, which were compared to those derived from publicly available LNCaP SRS data. Strikingly, LRS is superior in detecting insertions of all sizes and deletions of <1000 bp long, whereas SRS is very useful in capturing long deletions, taking advantage of its paired-end reads. LRS identified more precise breakpoints of detected SVs. In addition, we found that SRS called many duplications and inversions, most of which were not confirmed by LRS, likely due to ambiguity in SRS read alignment to repetitive regions, leading to errors in SV calling. In conclusion, LRS outperformed SRS in detecting most SVs, except deletions longer than LRS read lengths. Our study highlights the advantages of LRS in resolving complex genomic rearrangements and underscores its potential for improving SV detection in cancer genomics.
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.