ArticleHuman genomics2026
Leveraging a spectrum of cytogenomics methods for profiling complex karyotypes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Human 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA highly complex karyotype (high-CK) is a key biomarker of poor prognosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). While conventional methods lack the resolution to fully characterize complex structural variants (SVs), emerging technologies such as short-read WGS (sr-WGS), nanopore sequencing (ONT), optical genome mapping (OGM), and chromatin conformation capture (Micro-C) offer powerful tools for high-resolution SVs analysis, illuminating the genomic architecture underlying CLL.
methodsWe selected nine CLL cases bearing diverse genomic alterations. Each underwent routine diagnostic evaluation via chromosome banding analysis (CBA), multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization (mFISH), and chromosomal microarray (CMA) and was further analyzed using sr-WGS, ONT, OGM, and Micro-C. We performed a comprehensive comparison of copy number variants (CNVs) and SVs across all methods.
resultsAcross five methods (CMA, ONT, OGM, sr-WGS, Micro-C), 56.3% (179/318) of CNVs were consistently detected. A high-confidence CNV set, defined as those identified by ≥ 3 methods, comprised 70.4% (224/318). SV detection varied by genome complexity: 2910 unique breakends (BNDs) were identified, with only 10.9% (320/2910) supported by all methods. A high-confidence SV set, supported by ≥ 3 methods, included 20.4% (595/2910) of BNDs. Dicentric chromosomes (DICs) and complex derivative chromosomes (CDERs), particularly those involving BNDs near centromeric or telomeric regions, were the most difficult to resolve. Micro-C fully confirmed 71.4% (5/7) of CDERs and all ten DICs. Overall, Micro-C aligned best with classical cytogenetics, confirming 85.5% (47/55) of aberrations, followed by OGM (65.5%) and both ONT and sr-WGS (56.4%).
conclusionEach technology offers unique insights into the leukemia genome. Combining classical cytogenetics with high-throughput methods improves the detection of structural complexity and clinically relevant alterations.
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.