ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Benchmarking within-sample minority variant detection with short-read sequencing in
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Low-frequency (minority) variants-variants detectable within a sample at low allele frequencies-are relevant in several areas of research and health, ranging from cancer to pathogen heteroresistance. There is uncertainty around the optimal bioinformatic approach to accurately and reproducibly distinguish low-frequency variants from sequencing or mapping error. To address this we benchmarked seven variant callers on precision, recall and false positive characteristics for detecting low-frequency variants using simulated short-read whole genome sequencing data for 700 Results: We simulated 378 unique variants across 5 genomic backgrounds spanning 4 lineages. Variants were simulated to represent 3 genomic region categories, 10 allele frequencies and 5 sequencing depths. FreeBayes, a haplotype-based variant caller, achieved the highest pooled F1 score of the seven tools in drug resistance regions (average F1 = 0.86) and its higher performance held across genomic context and background. Across tools, we identified lower performance in repetitive (low mappability) regions, and strong reference bias in low-frequency variant calling. We validated variant caller performance on a sample of Conclusions: Our analysis provides evidence to support best practices for low-frequency variant calling, including tool choice, masking and filtering. We also develop and provide a new error model that excludes false positive low-frequency variant calls from FreeBayes output.
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.