ArticlePloS one2026
Sub-consensus haploid variant calling in long-read sequencing technology.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNext-generation sequencing (NGS) is vital for tracking viral evolution during outbreaks. Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) offers long-read, cost-effective sequencing, but accurate sub-consensus variant detection remains challenging. LoFreq, a widely used caller for sub-consensus variant calling in haploid genomes, was designed for short reads. This study assesses and benchmarks LoFreq variant identification accuracy on long-read data and proposes a calibration method to improve accuracy.
methodsWe created truth sets using three SARS-CoV-2 spike gene plasmids (7179 bases, 100 SNVs) and whole Escherichia coli genomes. Libraries were sequenced using R9.4.1 and R10.4.1 flow cells. LoFreq's recall was benchmarked across chemistries and library sizes. We also introduced a method to adjust Phred quality scores for enhanced accuracy.
resultsLoFreq showed high sensitivity, detecting variants at frequencies as low as 0.1%, with best performance on R10.4.1. However, false discovery rates (FDR) were chemistry- and depth-dependent. Our Phred score calibration reduced false positives while maintaining recall, though it was less effective below 10% frequency and not suitable for structural variant detection.
conclusionLoFreq can detect sub-consensus variants in ONT data, but high FDR limits direct use. Our calibration method improves accuracy, offering a simple Phred score adjustment approach that reduces false discovery rates in ONT data.
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.