ArticleGenome biology2025
A comprehensive benchmarking of adaptive sampling tools for nanopore sequencing.
Article in Genome biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Long-Read Sequencing in CKD Diagnostics: Breaking Genomic Barriers and Expanding Global Inclusion.Kidney international reports · 2026Review
- Review
- Nanopore direct RNA sequencing and the epitranscriptome: Advances in mapping native RNA landscapes.iMeta · 2026Review
- Global profiling of alternative splicing landscapes in response to cold stress during the cotyledon stage in cotton.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- A comprehensive benchmarking of adaptive sampling tools for nanopore sequencing.Genome biology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdaptive sampling is an emerging technology to enrich target reads while depleting unwanted reads during real-time nanopore sequencing. The application of different algorithms has spawned various tools for the determination of read rejection. However, an evaluation in conjunction with identifying the optimal enrichment performance for a specific task has yet to be conducted.
resultsThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of six widely used tools for nanopore adaptive sampling. Three distinct types of tasks were selected for testing, including the intraspecies enrichment of COSMIC genes, the interspecies enrichment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and the depletion of human host DNA. All the tools show increases in coverage depths of targets varying from 1.50- to 4.86-fold. The combination of Guppy for base calling and minimap2 for read alignment emerged as the optimal read classification strategy with the highest accuracy. MinKNOW, Readfish, and BOSS-RUNS using this strategy show generally excellent enrichment or depletion performance. The deep learning method utilizing raw signals demonstrates higher accuracy and quicker read ejection compared to the conventional signal-based approach, also achieving top-class performance in host depletion.
conclusionsOur benchmarking study conducted a thorough comparison of current tools on various adaptive sampling occasions. The nucleotide-alignment-based approach is capable of handling diverse target references with broad application. The tools employing this strategy, especially MinKNOW, could be considered as a prior option for most adaptive sampling scenarios. The deep learning technique utilizing raw signals demonstrates remarkable classification efficiency and accuracy, warranting greater emphasis and exploration in future software development endeavors.
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.