ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2026
Whole-genome sequencing with AVITI and NovaSeq X Plus reveals comparable performance with contextual biases.
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.
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.
- Short-Read Sequencing Benchmarking with Donor-Specific Assemblies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.