ArticleHeredity2026
How precise are mutation rate estimates? Comparison of different approaches to estimate de novo mutation rates.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.