ArticleGenome biology2026
Benchmarking of sequencing technologies defines optimal strategies for genetic variants detection in a human genome.
Article in Genome biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Length Matters: Toward the Clinical Adoption of Long-Read Sequencing.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking of sequencing technologies defines optimal strategies for genetic variants detection in a human genome.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Benchmarking of Oxford Nanopore whole genome sequencing for germline variant and CpG methylation detection across Canada's national platform for genome sequencing and analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in sequencing technologies continue to improve the resolution and completeness with which human genetic variation can be characterized. Short-read sequencing remains widely used due to its high base accuracy, throughput, and cost efficiency; however, its limited ability to resolve repetitive and structurally complex regions has accelerated adoption of long-read sequencing platforms, including those from Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT).
resultsWe systematically compared sequencing technologies and variant calling pipelines for small variants and structural variants across diverse genomic contexts and sequencing depths. Short-read sequencing combined with DRAGEN achieved high accuracy for single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels in well-mapped and moderately complex regions but showed reduced sensitivity and completeness for structural variant detection. In contrast, long-read sequencing platforms demonstrated clear advantages in detecting structural variants and resolving small variants in difficult genomic regions, although challenges remain in specific indel-prone sequence contexts. Among long-read pipelines, PacBio Revio with DeepVariant achieved the highest SNV and indel accuracy genome-wide, while ONT R10 with DeepVariant performed particularly well in clinically relevant loci. Structural variant detection was dominated by long-read optimized callers, with SVIM and Sawfish performing best for PacBio, and Sniffles2 and CuteSV2 for ONT, consistently outperforming short-read-based methods across variant classes and sizes. Coverage analyses indicated that long-read sequencing reached accuracy saturation between 20 × and 45 × , whereas short-read sequencing required more than 60 × coverage to approach maximal genome completeness.
conclusionsThese results provide practical guidance for platform and pipeline selection. Long-read sequencing enables more comprehensive detection and resolution of structural variants and variation in complex genomic regions, while short-read sequencing remains a cost-effective and scalable solution for high-throughput genotyping and clinically focused applications.
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.