ArticleBMC genomics2026
From reads to results: comparing Oxford Nanopore to Illumina sequencing for citrus virus surveillance.
Article in BMC genomics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundONT sequencing has been previously evaluated for its ability to detect plant viruses and viroids. Its advantages, such as longer read lengths and real-time analysis, compete with extensively validated Illumina platforms for possible incorporation into routine pathogen detection. The continuous development and improvement of ONT sequencing along with the discontinuation of older equipment and reagents, necessitate a renewed comparison of these sequencing platforms, specifically in citrus where only limited research is available.
resultsThis study compared the ability of Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing, using the MinION flow cell, with Illumina sequencing, on the NovaSeqX platform, to accurately detect three viruses and three viroids in citrus. Both technologies were able to identify all pathogens using both reference-dependent and independent methods. While Illumina sequencing re-established the high sensitivity, coverage and accuracy seen previously, ONT compensated for fewer pathogen reads and lower depth with longer reads that enabled reasonable genome coverage and sequencing identities comparable to that of Illumina. Moreover, the pooling of data from different ONT barcode datasets from a single sample, improved comparability to Illumina results as small variations in library preparation, sample loading and flow cells can lead to a significant decrease in sequencing data. Reference gene expression profiles were also investigated to evaluate internal controls and check outlier samples. The ONT platform also had a shorter turnaround compared to Illumina sequencing.
conclusionThe use of ONT sequencing may offer advantages for small-scale routine pathogen detection. It has the potential to accurately detect pathogens and discover novel viral agents. This comparison between Illumina and ONT platforms highlights the strengths associated with each approach and offers new insights into the possible application of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) within plant health surveillance and biosecurity programs.
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.