Cited by 1,841Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenomics and Rare Diseases

Accurate circular consensus long-read sequencing improves variant detection and assembly of a human genome

Open access
Wenger, Aaron M., Peluso, Paul, Rowell, William J., Chang, Pi-Chuan, Hall, Richard J., Concepcion, Gregory T., Ebler, Jana, Fungtammasan, Arkarachai +20 more·2019·Nature Biotechnology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The DNA sequencing technologies in use today produce either highly accurate short reads or less-accurate long reads. We report the optimization of circular consensus sequencing (CCS) to improve the accuracy of single-molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing (PacBio) and generate highly accurate (99.8%) long high-fidelity (HiFi) reads with an average length of 13.5 kilobases (kb). We applied our approach to sequence the well-characterized human HG002/NA24385 genome and obtained precision and recall rates of at least 99.91% for single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), 95.98% for insertions and deletions <50 bp (indels) and 95.99% for structural variants. Our CCS method matches or exceeds the ability of short-read sequencing to detect small variants and structural variants. We estimate that 2,434 discordances are correctable mistakes in the 'genome in a bottle' (GIAB) benchmark set. Nearly all (99.64%) variants can be phased into haplotypes, further improving variant detection. De novo genome assembly using CCS reads alone produced a contiguous and accurate genome with a contig N50 of >15 megabases (Mb) and concordance of 99.997%, substantially outperforming assembly with less-accurate long reads.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41587-019-0217-9

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More than two-thirds of SVs have been missed in studies that used short-read data and the human reference assembly.

    “more than two-thirds of SVs have been missed in studies that used short-read data and the human reference assembly6–8”

    From A draft human pangenome reference. (2023) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Results section (‘Structural Variant Detection with CCS Reads’; page unavailable) shows that short-read calling missed structural variants, but its Manta callset had 55.88% recall—about 44% missed, not more than two-thirds. The comparison concerns a benchmark callset, not a finding about studies generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wenger, A. M., Peluso, P., Rowell, W. J., Chang, P.-C., Hall, R. J., Concepcion, G. T., Ebler, J., Fungtammasan, A., Kolesnikov, A., Olson, N. D., Töpfer, A., Alonge, M., Mahmoud, M., Qian, Y., Chin, C.-S., Phillippy, A. M., Schatz, M. C., Myers, G., DePristo, M. A., Ruan, J., Marschall, T., Sedlazeck, F. J., Zook, J. M., Li, H., Koren, S., Carroll, A., Rank, D. R., & Hunkapiller, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Pacific Biosciences (United States) (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Informatics (DE)
  • DNAnexus (United States) (US)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen (CN)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Rank, David R.
  • Hunkapiller, Michael W.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2019-08-12
Volume
37
Issue
10
Pages
1155-1162
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2968499116
Cited by
1,841
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 246 · 2025: 300 · 2024: 326 · 2023: 275 · 2022: 261 · 2021: 241 · 2020: 133 · 2019: 56 · 2012: 1
FWCI
60.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (391137747, 395192176)
  • National Science Foundation (DBI-1350041)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (R01-HG006677, UM1 HG008898, 1R01HG010040)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Human Genome Research Institute
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31571353, 31822029)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • 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
Keywords
circular consensus sequencing, single-molecule real-time sequencing, PacBio HiFi reads, variant calling, structural variants, indels, single nucleotide variants, haplotype phasing, de novo genome assembly
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, DNA, Circular, Haplotypes, Humans, Genetic Variation, Genome, Human, Sequence Analysis, DNA, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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