ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Determinants of haplotype phasing accuracy in long-read human genome sequencing.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate haplotype phasing is critical for interpreting human genetic variation. Long-read whole-genome sequencing has emerged as a powerful approach for read-based phasing, particularly where parental DNA is absent, yet the determinants of phasing accuracy remain incompletely defined. Here, we evaluate haplotype phasing performance across sequencing technology, reference genome, read length, and coverage depth using Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) and Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) data from two Genome in a Bottle reference samples (HG002 and HG005). In clinically relevant genes, alignment to the T2T-CHM13 (T2T) reference genome improves phasing performance relative to GRCh38, reducing mean gene-level phasing error rates by 3-9-fold. T2T alignment increases phase set NG50 and yields 1.5-2-fold more phased variant pairs. At similar read N50 values, ONT has a higher phasing error rate than PacBio in certain genes. Downsampling demonstrates that phasing error rates plateau at ~20x coverage. Longer ONT read lengths reduce phasing error rates and extend phase set contiguity. Haplotype-resolved assemblies produce substantially higher phasing error rates than alignment-based phasing, demonstrating the advantage of an alignment-based approach. To enable per-variant-pair confidence assessment, we introduce PhaseQuality, a technology-specific stratification method that assigns confidence tiers to phased variants based solely on sequencing data. PhaseQuality accurately assigns 82-99% of known phasing errors to lower-confidence tiers, reducing error rates among high-confidence pairs to <0.5%. Together, these results demonstrate the primary technical determinants of long-read haplotype phasing accuracy and provide practical benchmarks for optimizing reference genome selection, coverage targets, and read length for long-read sequencing studies.
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.