Why are structural variants typically not tagged as well as SNPs?
I've wondered this for a really long time and I don't know where else to ask. Why are structural variants generally not tagged as well as SNPs?
Take this excerpt from and Ira Hall paper:
"Notably only 58.2% of common, autosomal SVs ... were in strong LD (r2 ≥ 0.8) with a SNV or indel ascertained by WGS in our study, compared to 79.4% of common SNVs"
I don't understand how this could be mechanistically. Does anyone know?
0 answers
No answers yet.
Log in to answer this question.
In my experience: too many false positives, it's hard to compare two SV.
So its a SV calling issue that leads to noise and this is why SV are less correlated with SNPs?
I was actually wondering if there was some type biological explanation for why SVs are not a easy to tie to a specific haplotype, but I really couldn't think of one. You explanation would make sense, assuming I understand it correctly. It would kind of make sense with what I understand about SV calling, is that it is hard and needs lots of different callers to produce one reliable consensus call.
I guess the other thing is that if these SVs are in very unstable regions maybe they just keep getting messed up with each generation at a rate that makes them difficult to be reliably correlated with any SNV?