Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 2, 2025

Detection of Rare Genomic Variants from Pooled Sequencing Using SPLINTER
Published on: June 23, 2012
Towards a better understanding of the low recall of insertion variants with short-read based variant callers
Wesley J Delage1, Julien Thevenon2, Claire Lemaitre3
1Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, Rennes, F-35000, France. wesley.delage@irisa.fr.
Background:
Since 2009, numerous tools have been developed to detect structural variants using short read technologies. Insertions >50 bp are one of the hardest type to discover and are drastically underrepresented in gold standard variant callsets. The advent of long read technologies has completely changed the situation. In 2019, two independent cross technologies studies have published the most complete variant callsets with sequence resolved insertions in human individuals. Among the reported insertions, only 17 to 28% could be discovered with short-read based tools.
Results:
In this work, we performed an in-depth analysis of these unprecedented insertion callsets in order to investigate the causes of such failures. We have first established a precise classification of insertion variants according to four layers of characterization: the nature and size of the inserted sequence, the genomic context of the insertion site and the breakpoint junction complexity. Because these levels are intertwined, we then used simulations to characterize the impact of each complexity factor on the recall of several structural variant callers. We showed that most reported insertions exhibited characteristics that may interfere with their discovery: 63% were tandem repeat expansions, 38% contained homology larger than 10 bp within their breakpoint junctions and 70% were located in simple repeats. Consequently, the recall of short-read based variant callers was significantly lower for such insertions (6% for tandem repeats vs 56% for mobile element insertions). Simulations showed that the most impacting factor was the insertion type rather than the genomic context, with various difficulties being handled differently among the tested structural variant callers, and they highlighted the lack of sequence resolution for most insertion calls.
Conclusions:
Our results explain the low recall by pointing out several difficulty factors among the observed insertion features and provide avenues for improving SV caller algorithms and their combinations.
Related Concept Videos
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms-SNPs
Overview of Transposition and Recombination
Exon Recombination
Exon shuffling follows “splice frame rules.” Each exon...
Non-LTR Retrotransposons
Genome Copying Errors

