ArticleNucleic acids research2009
Using reads to annotate the genome: influence of length, background distribution, and sequence errors on prediction capacity.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effective requesting method to detect fusion transcripts in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia RNA-seq.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Targeted variant detection using unaligned RNA-Seq reads.Life science alliance · 2019Article
- Colib'read on galaxy: a tools suite dedicated to biological information extraction from raw NGS reads.GigaScience · 2016Article
- Combining DGE and RNA-sequencing data to identify new polyA+ non-coding transcripts in the human genome.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
- CRAC: an integrated approach to the analysis of RNA-seq reads.Genome biology · 2013Article
- Querying large read collections in main memory: a versatile data structure.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- RNA-seq: technical variability and sampling.BMC genomics · 2011Article
- Article
- Combinatorial analysis and algorithms for quasispecies reconstruction using next-generation sequencing.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- Statistical design and analysis of RNA sequencing data.Genetics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultra high-throughput sequencing is used to analyse the transcriptome or interactome at unprecedented depth on a genome-wide scale. These techniques yield short sequence reads that are then mapped on a genome sequence to predict putatively transcribed or protein-interacting regions. We argue that factors such as background distribution, sequence errors, and read length impact on the prediction capacity of sequence census experiments. Here we suggest a computational approach to measure these factors and analyse their influence on both transcriptomic and epigenomic assays. This investigation provides new clues on both methodological and biological issues. For instance, by analysing chromatin immunoprecipitation read sets, we estimate that 4.6% of reads are affected by SNPs. We show that, although the nucleotide error probability is low, it significantly increases with the position in the sequence. Choosing a read length above 19 bp practically eliminates the risk of finding irrelevant positions, while above 20 bp the number of uniquely mapped reads decreases. With our procedure, we obtain 0.6% false positives among genomic locations. Hence, even rare signatures should identify biologically relevant regions, if they are mapped on the genome. This indicates that digital transcriptomics may help to characterize the wealth of yet undiscovered, low-abundance transcripts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.