Genome ResearchBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Small allelic variants are a source of ancestral bias in structural variant breakpoint placement
Abstract
High-quality genome assemblies and sophisticated algorithms have increased sensitivity for a wide range of variant types, and breakpoint accuracy for structural variants (SVs, [≥] 50 bp) has improved to near basepair precision. Despite these advances, many SVs in unique regions of the genome are subject to systematic bias that affects breakpoint location. This ambiguity leads to less accurate variant comparisons across samples, and it obscures true breakpoint features needed for mechanistic inferences. To understand why SVs are not consistently placed, we re-analyzed 64 phased haplotypes constructed from long-read assemblies released by the Human Genome Structural Variation Consortium (HGSVC). We identified variable breakpoints for 882 SV insertions and 180 SV deletions not anchored in tandem repeats (TRs) or segmental duplications (SDs). While this is unexpectedly high for genome assemblies in unique loci, we find read-based callsets from the same sequencing data yielded 1,566 insertions and 986 deletions with inconsistent breakpoints also not anchored in TRs or SDs. When we investigated causes for breakpoint inaccuracy, we found sequence and assembly errors had minimal impact, but we observed a strong effect of ancestry. We confirmed that polymorphic mismatches and small indels are enriched at shifted breakpoints and that these polymorphisms are generally lost when breakpoints shift. Long tracts of homology, such as SVs mediated by transposable elements, increase the likelihood of imprecise SV calls and the distance they are shifted. Tandem Duplication (TD) breakpoints are the most heavily affected SV class with 14% of TDs placed at different locations across haplotypes. While graph genome methods normalize SV calls across many samples, the resulting breakpoints are sometimes incorrect, highlighting a need to tune graph methods for breakpoint accuracy. The breakpoint inconsistencies we characterize collectively affect [~]5% of the SVs called in a human genome and underscore a need for algorithm development to improve SV databases, mitigate the impact of ancestry on breakpoint placement, and increase the value of callsets for investigating mutational processes.
- organism: human
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- research focus: variant calling
- research focus: variant effect prediction
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: statistical model
- approach: experimental assay
- Citations
- 11
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.
Related papers
- SVarp: pangenome-based structural variant discovery
Arda Söylev, Jana Ebler, … Tobias Marschall·bioRxiv·Feb 18, 2024
- De novo diploid genome assembly for genome-wide structural variant detection
Lu Zhang, Xin Zhou, … Arend Sidow·NAR Genomics and BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Dec 6, 2019
- Comparison and benchmark of long-read based structural variant detection strategies
Jiadong Lin, Peng Jia, … Kai Ye·bioRxiv·Aug 9, 2022
- Multi-platform discovery of haplotype-resolved structural variation in human genomes
Mark Chaisson, Ashley D. Sanders, … Charles Lee·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Apr 16, 2019
- Towards standards for analysing structural variants from short-read whole genome sequencing data
James C. Slimmer, Johanna L. Jones, … Nicholas B. Blackburn·bioRxiv·Oct 14, 2026
- Anyone can be the best: Impact of diverse methodologies on the evaluation of structural variant callers
Luca Denti, Thomas Krannich, … Fereydoun Hormozdiari·bioRxiv·Aug 28, 2025