The impact of FASTQ and alignment read order on structural variant calling from long-read sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Structural variant (SV) calling from DNA sequencing data has been challenging due to several factors, including 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: ecotypes to evaluate the sensitivity of different SV callers on FASTQ read order. Comparisons of variant call format files generated from the original and permutated FASTQ files demonstrated that the order of input data affected the SVs predicted by each caller. In particular, pbsv was highly sensitive to the order of the input data, especially at the highest depths where over 70% of the SV calls generated from pairs of differently ordered FASTQ files were in disagreement. These demonstrate that read order sensitivity is a complex, multifactorial process, as the differences observed both within and between species varied considerably according to the specific combination of aligner, SV caller, and sequencing depth. In addition to the SV callers being sensitive to the input data order, the SAMtools alignment sorting algorithm was identified as a source of variability following read order randomization. Conclusion: The results of this study highlight the sensitivity 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 input order sensitivity of read alignment sorting methods when analyzing long-read sequencing data for SV calling, as mitigating a source of variability could facilitate future replication work. These results also raise important questions surrounding the relationship between SV caller read order sensitivity and tool performance. Therefore, tool developers should also consider input order sensitivity as a potential source of variability during the development and benchmarking of new and improved methods 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 | 0.030 | 0.117 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".