ArticleGigaScience2026
Cancer genome standards for long-read sequencing using cancer cell line mixtures.
Article in GigaScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong-read sequencing (LRS) improves genome alignment and facilitates resolving variants in genomic regions of low complexity, making it a promising approach for cancer variant detection and biomarker discovery.
resultsHere, we evaluate the performance of LRS using Oxford Nanopore sequencing to detect somatic variants across different tumour purities and sequencing depths by comparing to somatic variants from short-read sequencing. We generated experimental mixtures of cancer cell lines and matched normal cell lines to simulate 10 tumour purities (ranging from 0 to 100% tumour content). This resulted in 22 samples, which were sequenced using whole-genome LRS to a targeted depth of 60x, and somatic variants were identified. We down-sampled data to explore the optimal read depth for somatic variant detection. Our results show long-read variant calling tools achieve recall rates comparable to short-read gold standards. While tumour sequencing depth of 30x-60x is generally sufficient for detecting common variants, particularly structural variants, sequencing the matched normal sample at adequate depth is crucial for accuracy. Notably, we found variants unique to LRS that may represent real and previously undetected events.
conclusionThis study highlights key factors for optimising cancer genome sequencing with LRS and provides a comprehensive dataset of cell line mixtures for future research and tool development.
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.