Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21453517›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2011

A vertebrate case study of the quality of assemblies derived from next-generation sequences.

Liang Ye, LaDeana W Hillier, Patrick Minx, Nay Thane, Devin P Locke, John C Martin, Lei Chen, Makedonka Mitreva, Jason R Miller, Kevin V Haub and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Fourth Report on Chicken Genes and Chromosomes 2022.Cytogenetic and genome research · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Draft sequencing and analysis of the genome of pufferfish Takifugu flavidus.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2014
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Graph accordance of next-generation sequence assemblies.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

15 authors.

Liang YeThe Genome Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8501, 4444 Forest Park Avenue, St Louis, MO 63108, USA.
LaDeana W Hillier
Patrick Minx
Nay Thane
Devin P Locke
John C Martin
Lei Chen
Makedonka Mitreva
Jason R Miller
Kevin V Haub
David J Dooling
Elaine R Mardis
Richard K Wilson
George M Weinstock
Wesley C Warren

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unparalleled efficiency of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has prompted widespread adoption, but significant problems remain in the use of NGS data for whole genome assembly. We explore the advantages and disadvantages of chicken genome assemblies generated using a variety of sequencing and assembly methodologies. NGS assemblies are equivalent in some ways to a Sanger-based assembly yet deficient in others. Nonetheless, these assemblies are sufficient for the identification of the majority of genes and can reveal novel sequences when compared to existing assembly references.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNAAnimalsChickensComputational BiologyDNA, ComplementaryFemaleGenomicsQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareTranscriptomeDNA, Complementary

Identifiers

PMID21453517
PMCPMC3129681

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.