ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2026
Representation and detection of inversions in pangenome graphs.
Article in NAR genomics and 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pangenome graphs are increasingly used in genetic diversity analyses because they reduce reference bias in read mapping and enhance variant discovery and genotyping from SNPs to structural variants. In pangenome graphs, variants appear as bubbles, which can be detected by dedicated bubble calling tools. Although these tools report essential information on the variant bubbles, such as their position and allele walks in the graph, they do not annotate the type of the detected variants. While simple SNPs, insertions, and deletions are easily distinguishable by allele size, large balanced variants like inversions are harder to differentiate among the large number of unannotated bubbles and remain underexplored in pangenome graph benchmarks and analyses. In this work, we focused on inversions, which have been drawing renewed attention in evolutionary genomics studies in the past years, and aimed to assess how this type of variant is handled by state of the art pangenome graph pipelines. We identified two distinct topological motifs for inversion bubbles: one path-explicit and one alignment-rescued, and developed a tool to annotate them from bubble-caller outputs. We constructed pangenome graphs with both simulated data and real data using four state of the art pipelines, and assessed the impact of inversion size, genome divergence, and variant density on inversion representation and accuracy. Our results reveal substantial differences between pipelines in simulated graphs, with some inversions either misrepresented or lost. In addition, recovery rates are strikingly low in real human datasets, highlighting major challenges in analyzing inversions through pangenomic approaches.
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.