Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21685085›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2011

Systematic exploration of error sources in pyrosequencing flowgram data.

Susanne Balzer, Ketil Malde, Inge Jonassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. High-Penetrance Rare Variants Underlying Familial Lung Cancer Risk: Insights From Genetic Epidemiology of Lung Cancer Consortium.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. RAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer: advances in Europe.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2016
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Captured metagenomics: large-scale targeting of genes based on 'sequence capture' reveals functional diversity in soils.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Susanne BalzerInstitute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870, N-5817 Bergen, Norway. susanne.balzer@imr.no
Ketil Malde
Inge Jonassen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivation454 pyrosequencing, by Roche Diagnostics, has emerged as an alternative to Sanger sequencing when it comes to read lengths, performance and cost, but shows higher per-base error rates. Although there are several tools available for noise removal, targeting different application fields, data interpretation would benefit from a better understanding of the different error types.

resultsBy exploring 454 raw data, we quantify to what extent different factors account for sequencing errors. In addition to the well-known homopolymer length inaccuracies, we have identified errors likely to originate from other stages of the sequencing process. We use our findings to extend the flowsim pipeline with functionalities to simulate these errors, and thus enable a more realistic simulation of 454 pyrosequencing data with flowsim. AVAILABILITY: The flowsim pipeline is freely available under the General Public License from http://biohaskell.org/Applications/FlowSim. CONTACT: susanne.balzer@imr.no.

Indexed as

AnimalsBassComputer SimulationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPolymerase Chain ReactionSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID21685085
PMCPMC3117331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.