ArticleGenes2026
Distribution of Sequencing Coverage Gaps in Exomes and Genomes: Potential Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy in Neurodevelopmental Disorder Genes.
Article in Genes, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExome (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) are powerful tools for diagnosing neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), yet sequencing coverage failures can leave clinically relevant variants undetected. Analyzing the distribution of coverage gaps across sequencing approaches and batches is therefore informative for diagnostic accuracy.
methodsWe analyzed sequencing data from 43 NDD patients across four ES runs, including 14 individuals sequenced by both ES (Twist Human-Core-Exome-v1.3) and GS. Low-coverage regions (LCRs) were defined as target intervals with mean depth <20 x, and z-scores < -1.96 were used to identify batch-specific systematic LCRs. LCRs were clinically annotated using OMIM and SysNDD databases.
resultsLCR patterns were highly consistent within each ES batch but were characterized by extreme variability between batches. Higher global mean coverage increased intra-batch consistency, but batches sequenced at a commonly accepted yield in clinical sequencing (>100 x mean coverage) showed thousands of batch-specific LCRs. LCR patterns substantially diverged between ES and GS, displaying preferential impact on different genes. Although a restricted group of genes accumulates LCRs disproportionately, most LCRs are broadly dispersed throughout the genome. LCRs were not systematically associated with features such as GC content and genomic location (e.g., exon 1). Interestingly, LCRs affected OMIM/SysNDD genes and occasionally overlapped ClinVar pathogenic variants, indicating potential impact on diagnostic sensitivity.
conclusionThe global distribution of coverage gaps appears strongly influenced by batch-specific effects, making the occurrence of LCRs partly unpredictable even within clinically relevant gene sets. These findings support systematic assessment of LCRs as a component of quality evaluation in diagnostic sequencing workflows.
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.