Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This study successfully identified genetic loci associated with various traits by generating large-scale long-read sequencing data from a diverse set of samples. This study is significant because it not only produces large-scale long-read genome sequencing data but also demonstrates its application in actual genetics research. Given its potential utility in various fields, this study is expected to make a valuable contribution to the academic community and to this journal. However, there are several critical aspects that could be improved. Below are specific comments for consideration.
Strengths:
Producing high-quality, large-scale variant datasets and imputation datasets
Weaknesses:
(1) Data availability
Currently, it appears that only the Genomic Lens SV Panel is available on the webpage described in the Data Availability section. It is unclear whether the authors intend to release the raw sequencing data. Since the study utilized samples from the 1000 Genomes Project, there should be no restriction on making the data publicly accessible. Given this, would the authors consider making the raw sequencing reads publicly available? If so, NCBI SRA or EBI ENA would be the most appropriate repositories for data deposition. I strongly encourage the authors to consider public data release.
Additionally, accessing the Genomic Lens SV Panel data does not seem straightforward. The manuscript should provide a more detailed description of how researchers can access and utilize these data. In my opinion, the best approach would be to upload the variant data (VCF files) to a public database such as the European Variation Archive (EVA) hosted by EBI.
I strongly request that the authors publicly deposit the variant data. At a minimum:
a) The joint genotype data for all 888 samples from the 1000 Genomes Project must be publicly available.
b) For the UK Biobank samples, at least allele frequency data should be disclosed.
Since eLife has a well-established data-sharing policy, compliance with these guidelines is essential for publication in this journal.
(2) Long-read sequencing data quality
While the manuscript presents N50 read length and mean or median read base quality for each sample in a table, it would be highly beneficial to visualize these data in figures as well. A violin plot or similar visualization summarizing these distributions would significantly improve data presentation.
Notably, the base quality of ONT long-read sequencing data appears lower than expected. This may be attributed to the use of pore version 9.4.1, but the unexpectedly low base quality still warrants attention. It would be helpful to include a small figure within Figure 2 to illustrate this point. A visual representation of read length distribution and base quality distribution would strengthen the manuscript.
(3) Variant detection precision, recall, and F1 score
This study focuses on insertions and deletions (indels) {greater than or equal to}50 bp, but it remains unclear how well variants <50 bp are detected. I am particularly interested in the precision, recall, and F1 score for variants between 5-49 bp.
While ONT base quality is relatively low, single-base variants are challenging to analyze, but variants {greater than or equal to}5 bp should still be detectable as their read accuracy is still approximately 90%, making analysis feasible. Given that Sniffles supports the detection of variants as small as 1 bp, I strongly encourage the authors to conduct an additional analysis.
A simple two-category classification (e.g., 5-49 bp and {greater than or equal to}50 bp) should suffice. Additionally, a comparative analysis with HiFi and short-read sequencing data would be highly valuable. If possible, I strongly recommend that all detected variants {greater than or equal to}5 bp be made publicly available as VCF files.
(4) Assembly-based methods
Given the low read accuracy and low sequencing depth in this dataset, it is understandable that genome assembly is challenging. However, the latest high-quality human genome datasets-such as those produced by the Human Pangenome Reference Consortium (HPRC)-demonstrate that assembly-based approaches provide significant advantages, particularly for resolving complex and long structural variants.
Since HPRC data also utilize 1000 Genomes Project samples, it would be highly informative to compare the accuracy of ONT sequencing in this study with HPRC's assembly-based genome data. The recent publication on 47 HPRC samples provides a valuable reference for such a comparison. Given its relevance, the authors should consider providing a comparative analysis with HPRC data.
References:
(1) A draft human pangenome reference
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05896-x
(2) The Human Pangenome Project: a global resource to map genomic diversity
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04601-8
(3) A pangenome reference of 36 Chinese populations
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06173-7
(4) Long-read sequencing of 3,622 Icelanders provides insight into the role of structural variants in human diseases and other traits
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-021-00865-4
(5) Increased mutation and gene conversion within human segmental duplications
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05895-y
(6) Structural polymorphism and diversity of human segmental duplications
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-024-02051-8
(7) Highly accurate Korean draft genomes reveal structural variation highlighting human telomere evolution
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/53/1/gkae1294/7945385
