ArticleBMC genomics2025
Performance evaluation of structural variation detection using DNBSEQ whole-genome sequencing.
Article in BMC genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methodological Assessment of High-Throughput Sequencing Platforms: Illumina vs. MGI in Clinical-GradeInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDNBSEQ platforms have been widely used for variation detection, including single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and short insertions and deletions (INDELs), which is comparable to Illumina. However, the performance and even characteristics of structural variations (SVs) detection using DNBSEQ platforms are still unclear.
resultsIn this study, we assessed the detection of SVs using 40 tools on eight DNBSEQ whole-genome sequencing (WGS) datasets and two Illumina WGS datasets of NA12878. Our findings confirmed that the performance of SVs detection using the same tool on DNBSEQ and Illumina datasets was highly consistent, with correlations greater than 0.80 on metrics of number, size, precision and sensitivity, respectively. Furthermore, we constructed a "DNBSEQ" SV set (4,785 SVs) from the DNBSEQ datasets and an "Illumina" SV set (6,797 SVs) from the Illumina datasets. We found that these two SV sets were highly consistent of SV sites and genomic characteristics, including repetitive regions, GC distribution, difficult-to-sequence regions, and gene features, indicating the robustness of our comparative analysis and highlights the value of both platforms in understanding the genomic context of SVs.
conclusionsOur study systematically analyzed and characterized germline SVs detected on WGS datasets sequenced from DNBSEQ platforms, providing a benchmark resource for further studies of SVs using DNBSEQ platforms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.