ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Comprehensive evaluation of structural variation detection for germline and somatic analysis with long-read sequencing data.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detecting structural variations (SVs) via long-read sequencing remains difficult due to algorithmic variations and genomic complexity, alongside a shortage of comprehensive benchmarks for somatic variants. We present a unified benchmarking framework covering both germline and somatic SV detection, which evaluates 14 long-read callers across 20 core datasets from Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) Continuous Long Reads (CLR), Circular Consensus Sequencing (CCS), and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) platforms. Performance was analyzed across 12 dimensions using metrics including baseline artefact rate, Mendelian discordance rate (MDR), and Mendelian inheritance error rate (MIER). For germline SVs, DeBreak, cuteSV2, and SVDF showed stable and accurate detection. cuteSV2 and SVHunter maintained consistent genotyping accuracy across sequencing depths, whereas Severus and cuteSV2 performed well in identifying complex SVs such as inversions, duplications, and translocations. In tumor datasets, tools designed specifically for somatic SVs outperformed germline callers. Severus and SAVANA showed strong overall somatic performance, and nanomonsv showed distinct advantages at low coverage. These results offer practical references for tool selection under various sequencing scenarios, supporting future algorithmic development. The code and resources are available at https://github.com/model-lab/LR-SV-Benchmark.
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.