Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42321367›Full record

ArticleHeredity2026

How precise are mutation rate estimates? Comparison of different approaches to estimate de novo mutation rates.

Xi Wang, Chaowei Zhang, Hongbo Wang, Kerry Reid, Juha Merilä

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Xi WangArea of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. u3009279@connect.hku.hk.ORCID 0000-0002-6065-7130
Chaowei ZhangArea of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4641-1756
Hongbo WangArea of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8262-2580
Kerry ReidArea of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5653-9935
Juha MeriläArea of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. merila@hku.hk.ORCID 0000-0001-9614-0072

Funding

University Grants Committee (UGC) 202111159018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Availability of de novo mutation rate (µ) estimates based on approaches that rely on bioinformatic validations has increased tremendously during the past few years, but the accuracy and precision of these estimates often remain unclear as Sanger sequencing validation of the mutations is often lacking. We used both long- and short-read sequencing data and different bioinformatic pipelines to estimate µ, as well as false positive (FPR) and negative (FNR) rates, for family trios of flat-headed loaches (Oreonectes platycephalus). By comparing estimates against PCR-verified mutations, we observed that the top-performing approach (as ranked by the F1 score of seven approaches at the same depth) still exhibited a 4% false positive rate (FPR) alongside a 12% false-negative rate (FNR). Across the remaining methods, FPR values ranged from 4-12%, and FNRs from 8-19%. Irrespective of the bioinformatic approach used, long-read data yielded consistently lower µ estimates than short-read data because of the larger callable genome sizes. In addition, a higher mapping depth resulted in a lower FNR. These results call for caution regarding de novo mutations without Sanger sequencing validation in non-model organisms and raise the possibility that many published µ-estimates, especially those based on low mapping depths, might be biased.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMutation RateAnimalsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMutationSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID42321367
PMCPMC13354566

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.