Sign in

Abstract

A pangenome reference overcomes the inherent limitation of any individual reference genome by integrating the variation present in a population. We present the Human Pangenome Reference Consortiums (HPRC) Release 2 (HPRC2), an openly available, second phase pangenome that is an approximately fivefold expansion in genome number over HPRC Release 1 (HPRC1) and measurable improvement in genome completeness, contiguity, and accuracy. Selecting samples with a principled algorithm prioritising common variant coverage, HPRC2 contributes 460 haplotypes that together capture over 99% of common variation observed in the All of Us Research Program v8 cohort. Combining high-coverage long and ultra-long reads with modern assemblers and polishers, we produce thousands of telomere-to-telomere (T2T) chromosomes, and relative to HPRC1 halve the number of structurally unreliable regions as well as individual base errors per haplotype. We complement the assemblies with whole genome multiple alignments and gene annotations, and derive formal pangenome coordinate systems for addressing off-reference variation, demonstrating that individual human genomes contain more than one hundred thousand variants not succinctly described with respect to existing reference genomes. We also present the first matched long-read backed pantranscriptome and panepigenome at this scale, provide continuous local-ancestry estimates spanning every genome, and outline a host of new tools and applications that leverage the pangenome resource for improved genomics analysis.

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

In-depth summary

✦ Multi-agent verified full-text synthesis

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 8 Nov 2026 · from the full text of version 1 (22 Jul 2026) · CC BY 4.0

460 haplotypes from 230 genomes, selected to maximize common-variant coverage, capture 99.43% of All of Us common small variants and halve structurally unreliable regions and base errors versus HPRC1.

Any single linear reference misses variation segregating in a population; HPRC1's 88 haplotypes covered 91.92% of common small variants observed in the All of Us v8 cohort. HPRC2 expands genome count about fivefold, uses ultra-long nanopore reads during assembly rather than only for validation to produce thousands of T2T chromosomes, and adds pangenome coordinate systems for off-reference variants plus matched long-read transcript, methylation and chromatin-accessibility data.

Key results

  1. ShownGreedy MaxVar sample selection lets 460 haplotypes cover 99.43% of common (AF ≥ 1%) small variants found in All of Us v8, up from 91.92% for HPRC1. Coverage of rarer variants (AF ≥ 0.1%) is still far from saturated.

    Of 7,274,300 common small variants in All of Us v8 (N≈440,000), HPRC2 covers 7,233,162 (99.43%) vs 6,686,383 (91.92%) for HPRC1 (88 haplotypes). At AF ≥ 0.1%: 83% vs 62%. Extrapolation projects ≥99.9% common coverage at 932 haplotypes. An incidence-based estimate gives a 98.77% chance that a random variant from a new sample is already in the graph. · Capturing greater than 99% of common variation; An Expanded Map of Haplotype Resolved Variation

  2. ShownHifiasm assembly from HiFi plus ultra-long ONT reads, then DeepPolisher, gives more complete and accurate genomes than HPRC1. Automated T2T assembly is now possible (59% of chromosomes are T2T contigs or scaffolds), the 8p23.1 inversion region assembles without gaps, and Hi-C phasing performs close to trio phasing.

    3,666 chromosomes (35%) assembled as gapless T2T contigs and 2,490 (24%) as T2T scaffolds; mean k-mer QV 55 vs 52.5 for HPRC1; unreliable windows per haplotype 3.1% vs 6.9%. At 8p23.1 every HPRC2 assembly is gapless vs gaps in 45.7% of HPRC1 haplotypes. Complete, accurate active centromere arrays: 66% vs 15%. Trio vs Hi-C phasing: QV 57.09 vs 56.04. · Assembling thousands of complete, T2T…; Discussion

  3. ShownThe base-level Minigraph-Cactus graph holds more variant sites than HPRC1's and agrees better with consensus callsets. The new Pantree and GRef coordinate systems let variants inside non-reference sequence be written in VCF.

    Small-variant sites: 34.49 million vs 20.78 million; SV sites: 109.16 thousand vs 65.90 thousand. F1 vs truth sets backed by ≥2 of 14 callers: 99.16% vs 97.87% (small) and 92.64% vs 88.29% (SV); SV precision drops in tandem repeats. Pantree: 2.6 million SNPs, 2.3 million indels and 80 thousand SVs off reference; GRef: median 143,275 off-reference variants per sample (2.6%). · An Expanded Map of Haplotype Resolved Variation; Mapping pangenome coordinates; Discussion

  4. ShownUsing the HPRC2 graph in short-read analyses cuts small-variant calling errors compared with GRCh38-only pipelines, genotypes more SVs per genome and strengthens eQTL associations.

    DeepVariant and Sentieon on HG002 across four platforms (GIAB v5.0): errors fall 36% to 52.4% overall and 50.1% to 67.7% for SNPs. PanGenie on 3,202 1000G genomes: median 27,428 SVs per sample, 9,339 more than with the HPRC1 graph and 2,742 more than with HGSVC3+HPRC1. eQTLs in 430 samples: pangenome-specific variants are 20.3% of lead markers at 10,169 eQTLs; 893 eGenes (8.8%) gain ≥20% in -log10 p. · Pangenome applications; Pangenome based read mapping improves small…; Pangenome-based variant calling improves trait…

  5. ShownThe assemblies add CpGs absent from the linear reference, and matched long-read methylation, chromatin and RNA data from the cell lines find methylation QTLs, accessible elements and transcripts that a linear reference cannot represent.

    17.6 million CpGs absent from T2T-CHM13 (a 51.9% increase over its 33.8 million). 80,854 promoter mQTLs, with SV lead variants 1.71-fold enriched in centromere/satellite regions (empirical P = 2.0 × 10^-4). Fiber-seq in 38 samples: 51,111 of 568,430 consensus accessible peaks (9.0%) lie in loci absent from GRCh38. Kinnex RNA in 206 samples: 68,681 reference-divergent transcripts across 578 genes. · A matched long-read pantranscriptome resource; Non-reference CpG methylation across the…; Mapping methylation quantitative trait loci…; A paired long-read chromatin epigenome map of…

Methods, data and reproducibility

Samples, mostly from 1000 Genomes, were chosen by greedy common-variant coverage (MaxVar). They were sequenced with PacBio HiFi, ultra-long ONT and Hi-C or parental Illumina, assembled with Hifiasm, polished with DeepPolisher and aligned into Minigraph, Minigraph-Cactus and IMPG/PGGB graphs. Long-read RNA, 5mC and Fiber-seq layers were added, and the graphs were tested in genotyping, variant calling and eQTL mapping.

  • HPRC2 haplotype-resolved assemblies (Hifiasm; 126 trio-phased, 104 Hi-C-phased) · human · n = 230 genomes, 460 haplotypes · GenBank BioProject PRJNA730822
  • PacBio HiFi, ONT ultra-long, Hi-C and Illumina sequencing of lymphoblastoid cell lines · human · n = 171 MaxVar-selected, 47 HPRC1 and 14 HPP samples · SRA BioProjects PRJNA701308, PRJNA731524
  • All of Us Research Program v8 short-read WGS, used to evaluate common-variant coverage · human · n = N≈440,000
  • 1000 Genomes short-read genomes genotyped with PanGenie on the HPRC2 graph · human · n = 3,202
  • PacBio Kinnex long-read RNA from matched cell lines · human · n = 206 samples
  • Fiber-seq chromatin accessibility (PacBio and/or ONT) from matched cell lines · human · n = 38 samples
  • 1000 Genomes samples with short-read WGS and RNA-seq, used for eQTL mapping · human · n = 430 samples
  • HG002 reads from Illumina NovaSeq, Roche SBX-D, Element AVITI and Complete Genomics DNBSEQ-T7+, benchmarked against GIAB v5.0 · human · n = 1 sample, 4 platforms
Methods & tools
MaxVar, PCLAI, Hifiasm, DeepPolisher, HMM-Flagger, Minigraph-Cactus, IMPG/PGGB, Pantree, vg (GRef coordinates), PanGenie, DeepVariant, Panmethyl
Software & environment
Versions are given for most tools, e.g. Hifiasm v0.19.7/v0.19.9, DeepPolisher container google/deepconsensus:polisher_v0.0.8_12122023, HMM-Flagger v1.2, NucFlag v0.3.3, vg v1.74.0, PanGenie v4.2.1. Workflows are in WDL and Nextflow; QC inputs are archived on Zenodo (10.5281/zenodo.20752648).
Assay conditions & compute
NIH HPC Biowulf cluster and AWS cloud credits; no runtimes, memory or hardware details given.
Reproducibility gaps
Several analyses (PanGenie genotyping, eQTL methods, centromere graphs, TE methylation, chromatin variation) are detailed in companion manuscripts, some still in preparation. Verkko assemblies are described elsewhere.
Limitations (6)
  • Acrocentric short arms and the repeat-rich chrY q-arm are still mostly not assembled accurately. 34% of active alpha-satellite centromere arrays are fragmented or flagged, and only 157 acrocentric short arms (6.8%) are contiguous without QC flags. · stated by the authors
  • Some highly identical (>98%) interchromosomal SDs failed short-read depth validation, implying residual artefactual SDs (12.5 Mb per haplotype across 46 assemblies). Base accuracy is limited by homopolymer length errors in current long reads. · stated by the authors
  • Coverage of rarer variants (AF ≥ 0.1%) is 83%, and the authors estimate thousands of samples are needed to reach 99%. Populations poorly represented in 1000 Genomes and All of Us (Oceania; East, Central and Southern Africa) fall outside these estimates. · stated by the authors
  • Transcript, methylation and chromatin data come only from lymphoblastoid cell lines, whose telomere lengths do not reflect primary tissue. The catalogues of reference-divergent transcripts and accessible elements need extending to other cell types. · stated by the authors
  • Graph-variant F1 gains are scored against truth sets the authors built by merging 14 GRCh38-based callers (at least 2 supporting), so events that most callers miss or misrepresent would not count against either graph. · noted in this summary
  • The small-variant calling gains are measured on one benchmark genome (HG002), and the eQTL gains on a single 430-sample cohort, with no external replication reported. · noted in this summary

Who should read:Read this if you map, genotype or call variants against a human reference and need to know what a 460-haplotype pangenome with matched RNA, methylation and chromatin data covers, and where it still falls short.

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.