ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Short-Read Sequencing Benchmarking with Donor-Specific Assemblies.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: High-throughput short-read sequencing has become a core technology for genomics, but the rapid expansion of available platforms has made it increasingly important to benchmark them under standardized conditions. A major challenge is that conventional reference-based comparisons confound true sequencing errors with inherited variation and reference bias, making it difficult to isolate platform-intrinsic performance. Results: We benchmarked nine short-read chemistries across seven DNA sequencers using two highly characterized benchmark samples, HG002 and COLO829BL, together with donor-specific assemblies to measure sequencing errors against sample-matched genomic references. This strategy separated authentic platform errors from biological divergence and revealed substantial differences in substitution, indel, read-position, and sequence-context error profiles. Element AVITI UltraQ and Roche SBX-D showed the lowest substitution error rates, whereas Ultima and Roche chemistries exhibited the strongest indel-associated biases. We also found pronounced platform-specific effects in low-complexity regions and trinucleotide contexts, including homopolymer-associated errors and context-dependent substitution skews that are directly relevant to rare-variant detection. In addition, we show that donor-specific references are essential for unbiased base-quality recalibration because they minimize reference bias and more faithfully support cross-platform comparison and low-frequency variant-calling thresholds. Conclusions: Donor-specific assembly-based benchmarking provides a robust framework for measuring true short-read sequencing errors and comparing platforms on a common, sample-matched basis. Our results establish a comprehensive reference for the community and show that authentic error profiles can guide platform selection, quality filtering, and improved detection of rare somatic variation.
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.