Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20634954›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Read length and repeat resolution: exploring prokaryote genomes using next-generation sequencing technologies.

Matt J Cahill, Claudio U Köser, Nicholas E Ross, John A C Archer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Taxonomic Evaluation of theMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparative Genomics of Completely SequencedFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Rapid single-colony whole-genome sequencing of bacterial pathogens.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2014
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Filtering duplicate reads from 454 pyrosequencing data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matt J CahillDepartment of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Claudio U Köser
Nicholas E Ross
John A C Archer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are a growing number of next-generation sequencing technologies. At present, the most cost-effective options also produce the shortest reads. However, even for prokaryotes, there is uncertainty concerning the utility of these technologies for the de novo assembly of complete genomes. This reflects an expectation that short reads will be unable to resolve small, but presumably abundant, repeats. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsUsing a simple model of repeat assembly, we develop and test a technique that, for any read length, can estimate the occurrence of unresolvable repeats in a genome, and thus predict the number of gaps that would need to be closed to produce a complete sequence. We apply this technique to 818 prokaryote genome sequences. This provides a quantitative assessment of the relative performance of various lengths. Notably, unpaired reads of only 150nt can reconstruct approximately 50% of the analysed genomes with fewer than 96 repeat-induced gaps. Nonetheless, there is considerable variation amongst prokaryotes. Some genomes can be assembled to near contiguity using very short reads while others require much longer reads.

conclusionsGiven the diversity of prokaryote genomes, a sequencing strategy should be tailored to the organism under study. Our results will provide researchers with a practical resource to guide the selection of the appropriate read length.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenomeProkaryotic CellsRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID20634954
PMCPMC2902515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.