The impact of FASTQ and alignment read order on structural variation calling from long-read sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Structural variation (SV) calling from DNA sequencing data has been challenging due to several factors, such as the ambiguity of short-read alignments, multiple complex SVs in the same genomic region, and the lack of “truth” datasets for benchmarking. Additionally, caller choice, parameter settings, and alignment method are known to affect SV calling. However, the impact of FASTQ read order on SV calling has not been explored for long-read data. Results In this study, we used PacBio DNA sequencing data from 15 Caenorhabditis elegans isolates to evaluate the dependence of different SV callers on FASTQ read order. Comparisons of variant call format (VCF) files generated from the original and permutated FASTQ files demonstrated that the order of input data had a large impact on SV prediction, particularly for pbsv. The overall differences were lowest for Sniffles, regardless of the aligner used. The type of variant most affected by read order varied by caller. For pbsv, most differences occurred for deletions and duplications, while for Sniffles, permutating the read order had a stronger impact on insertions. For SVIM, inversions and deletions accounted for most differences. Conclusion The results of this study highlight the dependence of SV calling on the order of reads encoded in FASTQ files, which has not been recognized in long-read approaches. These findings have implications for the replication of SV studies and the development of consistent SV calling protocols. Our study suggests that researchers should pay attention to the order of reads when analyzing long-read sequencing data for SV calling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".