ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2026
Best practices for improving alignment and variant calling on human sex chromosomes.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sex chromosome complement is the largest karyotypic variation observed in humans. X and Y chromosomes were once a pair of homologous autosomes. Although chromosome X and Y differentiated from one another, they still share high sequence similarity in some regions, such as the pseudoautosomal regions (PARs) and X-transposed region (XTR). The sex chromosomes violate some assumptions of autosomes but are not always processed separately in genomics. We undertook a simulation study to assess the effects of standard autosomal versus sex chromosome complement (SCC)-informed alignment, variant calling, and filtering strategies on variants detected on the sex chromosomes. We find that aligning samples to a reference genome informed by the SCC of the sample increases the number of true positives called in the PARs, and, in XX samples only, also the XTR. In contrast, in XY samples, masking the XTR during alignment results in a 10-fold higher rate of false positives (FPs). We further find that haploid calling on the sex chromosomes in XY samples reduces the number of FPs compared to diploid calling but does not decrease the number of false negatives. Improving the accuracy of variant calling results in detection of variants that could be relevant to studies of health and disease, including variants we recovered in genes implicated in cardiomyopathy, immunodeficiency, and Alzheimer disease. We recommend future genomic analyses implement the following best practices for detecting variants: aligning samples to versions of the human reference genome informed by the SCC of the sample and using accurate ploidy when calling variants.
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.