Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Sub-consensus haploid variant calling in long-read sequencing technology.

Created on 06 Oct 2026

Authors

Xavier Zair, Andreas Wilm, Miles C Benton, Cheng Yong Tham, Lin Yang, Paola Florez de Sessions, October Michael Sessions, Eng Hui Chew, Swapnil Mishra

Published in

PloS one. Volume 21. Issue 10. Pages e0356259. Epub Oct 05, 2026.

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is vital for tracking viral evolution during outbreaks. Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) offers long-read, cost-effective sequencing, but accurate sub-consensus variant detection remains challenging. LoFreq, a widely used caller for sub-consensus variant calling in haploid genomes, was designed for short reads. This study assesses and benchmarks LoFreq variant identification accuracy on long-read data and proposes a calibration method to improve accuracy.
We created truth sets using three SARS-CoV-2 spike gene plasmids (7179 bases, 100 SNVs) and whole Escherichia coli genomes. Libraries were sequenced using R9.4.1 and R10.4.1 flow cells. LoFreq's recall was benchmarked across chemistries and library sizes. We also introduced a method to adjust Phred quality scores for enhanced accuracy.
LoFreq showed high sensitivity, detecting variants at frequencies as low as 0.1%, with best performance on R10.4.1. However, false discovery rates (FDR) were chemistry- and depth-dependent. Our Phred score calibration reduced false positives while maintaining recall, though it was less effective below 10% frequency and not suitable for structural variant detection.
LoFreq can detect sub-consensus variants in ONT data, but high FDR limits direct use. Our calibration method improves accuracy, offering a simple Phred score adjustment approach that reduces false discovery rates in ONT data.

PMID:
42832612
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 06 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 17
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement