ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Pedigree-Based comparison of short-read and long-read sequencing for forensic mitochondrial genome analysis.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The choice between short-read and long-read sequencing represents a critical trade-off in forensic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis. In this study, Illumina short-read sequencing (SRS) and QitanTech Nanopore long-read sequencing (LRS) platforms were systematically compared using data from 177 individuals across 39 maternal pedigrees. The results demonstrated that LRS, which utilized a single-amplicon enrichment strategy, delivered superior coverage uniformity (median 100%), effectively reducing the coverage variability typically associated with SRS multiplex PCR. Moreover, LRS improved the discrimination of interference from nuclear mitochondrial DNA segments (NUMTs) by spanning homologous regions with longer reads. In contrast, the SRS data showed pronounced off-target alignment, which was notably enriched on chromosomes 17 and 2 because of spurious sequence homology. However, although both platforms produced concordant consensus haplotypes, SRS exhibited higher accuracy for low-level heteroplasmy detection. Pedigree-based validation revealed that the current LRS workflow produced background-noise signals that were misclassified as heteroplasmy at a 10% allele frequency threshold. Consequently, we propose a complementary workflow: employing LRS for structural characterization and NUMT exclusion while relying on SRS for high-fidelity quantification of heteroplasmy. This integrated strategy offers a robust solution for forensic casework involving complex or low-input samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42825929What 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.