Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42206012›Full record

ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2026

Whole-genome sequencing with AVITI and NovaSeq X Plus reveals comparable performance with contextual biases.

Pontus Höjer, Johannes Alneberg, Pär Lundin, Tom Martin, Julia Hauenstein, Helena Fällmar, Magnus Lindell, Christian Natanaelsson, Susana Häggqvist, Adam Ameur and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Short-Read Sequencing Benchmarking with Donor-Specific Assemblies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Pontus HöjerNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 171 65 Solna,Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8010-4755
Johannes AlnebergNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 171 65 Solna,Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2467-008X
Pär LundinNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 171 65 Solna, Sweden.
Tom MartinNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 752 37 Uppsala,Sweden.
Julia HauensteinDivision of Clinical Immunology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, 141 52 Huddinge,Sweden.
Helena FällmarNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 752 37 Uppsala,Sweden.
Magnus LindellNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 752 37 Uppsala,Sweden.
Christian NatanaelssonNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 171 65 Solna,Sweden.
Susana HäggqvistNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 752 37 Uppsala,Sweden.
Adam AmeurNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 752 37 Uppsala,Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6085-6749
Jessica NordlundNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 752 37 Uppsala,Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8699-9959
Robert Månsson WelinderNational Genomics Infrastructure, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 171 65 Solna,Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0738-0328

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Element Biosciences' avidity sequencing has emerged as a competing technology to Illumina's short-read sequencing platform. Prior benchmarks of avidity sequencing have not included the latest Illumina NovaSeq X/X Plus instruments with XLEAP chemistry. Here, we have run polymerase chain reaction-free whole-genome sequencing on four human tumor cell lines using both Illumina NovaSeq X Plus and Element AVITI instruments. AVITI showed low duplication rates and reported higher base qualities; the latter contributed to improved mapping confidence and fewer spurious variant candidates. Both platforms were found to be highly comparable when benchmarking variant calling, with AVITI only providing a minor improvement on INDELs at lower coverages. Stratifying by genomic context revealed further differences, where AVITI genome coverage and variant calls were superior in high-GC regions while being inferior in GC homopolymers. Error-rate analysis highlighted further differences between the platforms; in particular, AVITI in some instances displayed an increased error rate on read 2 related to short fragments. AVITI error rate was also found to be more stable downstream of repetitive regions, except for GC homopolymers. We further found that AVITI sequencing was sensitive to G-quadruplex motifs. Overall, despite these identified differences, both platforms performed highly comparable for variant analysis.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNAWhole Genome SequencingCell Line, TumorHumans

Identifiers

PMID42206012
PMCPMC13202175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.