Expectations and blind spots for structural variation detection from long-read assemblies and short-read genome sequencing technologies
Open accessAbstract
Virtually all genome sequencing efforts in national biobanks, complex and Mendelian disease programs, and medical genetic initiatives are reliant upon short-read whole-genome sequencing (srWGS), which presents challenges for the detection of structural variants (SVs) relative to emerging long-read WGS (lrWGS) technologies. Given this ubiquity of srWGS in large-scale genomics initiatives, we sought to establish expectations for routine SV detection from this data type by comparison with lrWGS assembly, as well as to quantify the genomic properties and added value of SVs uniquely accessible to each technology. Analyses from the Human Genome Structural Variation Consortium (HGSVC) of three families captured ~11,000 SVs per genome from srWGS and ~25,000 SVs per genome from lrWGS assembly. Detection power and precision for SV discovery varied dramatically by genomic context and variant class: 9.7% of the current GRCh38 reference is defined by segmental duplication (SD) and simple repeat (SR), yet 91.4% of deletions that were specifically discovered by lrWGS localized to these regions. Across the remaining 90.3% of reference sequence, we observed extremely high (93.8%) concordance between technologies for deletions in these datasets. In contrast, lrWGS was superior for detection of insertions across all genomic contexts. Given that non-SD/SR sequences encompass 95.9% of currently annotated disease-associated exons, improved sensitivity from lrWGS to discover novel pathogenic deletions in these currently interpretable genomic regions is likely to be incremental. However, these analyses highlight the considerable added value of assembly-based lrWGS to create new catalogs of insertions and transposable elements, as well as disease-associated repeat expansions in genomic sequences that were previously recalcitrant to routine assessment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 132
- Authors
- Zhao, X., Collins, R. L., Lee, W.-P., Weber, A. M., Jun, Y., Zhu, Q., Weisburd, B., Huang, Y., Audano, P. A., Wang, H., Walker, M., Lowther, C., Fu, J., Gerstein, M. B., Devine, S. E., Marschall, T., Korbel, J. O., Eichler, E. E., Chaisson, M. J. P., Lee, C., Mills, R. E., Brand, H., & Talkowski, M. E.
- Affiliations
- Broad Institute (US)
- The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Yale University (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
- European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Ewha Womans University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Talkowski, Michael E.
- ORCID
- Zhao, Xuefang
- Collins, Ryan L.
- Lee, Wan-Ping
- Weber, Alexandra M.
- Jun, Yukyung
- Zhu, Qihui
- Weisburd, Ben
- Huang, Yongqing
- Audano, Peter A.
- Walker, Mark
- Lowther, Chelsea
- Fu, Jack
- Gerstein, Mark B.
- Devine, Scott E.
- Marschall, Tobias
- Korbel, Jan O.
- Eichler, Evan E.
- Chaisson, Mark J.P.
- Lee, Charles
- Mills, Ryan E.
- Brand, Harrison
- Talkowski, Michael E.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Human Genetics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 919-928
- ISSN
- 0002-9297 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8206509
- OpenAlex
- W3145355063
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 13.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The American Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Mouseion at the JAXlibrary (Jackson Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2017240332)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- National Institutes of Health (GRFP2017240332, R03HD099547, R01HD091797, R01HG002898, R00DE026824, R01MH115957, R01HD081256, UM1HG008895, U24HG007497, F31HG010569, R01HG010169, R01HD096326)
- Forschungsfabrik Mikroelektronik Deutschland
- Xi’an Jiaotong University
- Ewha Womans University
- National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG002295)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- structural variant calling, long-read genome assembly, short-read whole-genome sequencing, segmental duplication, simple repeats, deletion, insertion, transposable elements, repeat expansion, monogenic disorders
- MeSH terms
- Whole Genome Sequencing, Exons, Goals, Humans, Research Design, Genome, Human, Sequence Alignment, Genomics, Genomic Structural Variation, DNA Copy Number Variations, Segmental Duplications, Genomic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review