ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
Identification and correction of systematic error in high-throughput sequence data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 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
137 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and masking of artifactual and misleading within-host variants in deep-sequencing SARS-CoV-2 data.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- A portable recalibration workflow for reference-based variant calling in non-human genomes.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- VCboost: reducing false positives in long-read variant calling for single-nucleotide polymorphism and indel detection in challenging genomic regions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Application of RNA markers in forensic body fluid analysis: from specificity and stability to polymorphism.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- A practical guide to targeted single-cell RNA sequencing technologies.Communications biology · 2026Review
- Systemic inflammation biomarkers can identify high tumor mutation burden in lung adenocarcinoma.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- A complete diploid human genome benchmark for personalized genomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Sequencing and Genotyping Errors on Bayesian Analysis of Genomic Data under the Multispecies Coalescent Model.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- UnderstandingmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Molecular typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a review of current methods, databases, softwares, and analytical tools.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- The quality and detection limits of mitochondrial heteroplasmy by long read nanopore sequencing.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Exploring the impact of sequence context on errors in SNP genotype calling with whole genome sequencing data using AI-based autoencoder approach.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
- The performance of homopolymer detection using dichromatic and tetrachromatic fluorogenic next-generation sequencing platforms.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- RNA barcode segments for SARS-CoV-2 identification from HCoVs and SARSr-CoV-2 lineages.Virologica Sinica · 2024Article
- Construction of LncRNA-Related ceRNA Networks in Longissimus Dorsi Muscle of Jinfen White Pigs at Different Developmental Stages.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- The Wild-Type tRNA Adenosine Deaminase Enzyme TadA Is Capable of Sequence-Specific DNA Base Editing.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2023Article
- Mapinsights: deep exploration of quality issues and error profiles in high-throughput sequence data.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Variant calling and benchmarking in an era of complete human genome sequences.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
77 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Abstract
backgroundA feature common to all DNA sequencing technologies is the presence of base-call errors in the sequenced reads. The implications of such errors are application specific, ranging from minor informatics nuisances to major problems affecting biological inferences. Recently developed "next-gen" sequencing technologies have greatly reduced the cost of sequencing, but have been shown to be more error prone than previous technologies. Both position specific (depending on the location in the read) and sequence specific (depending on the sequence in the read) errors have been identified in Illumina and Life Technology sequencing platforms. We describe a new type of systematic error that manifests as statistically unlikely accumulations of errors at specific genome (or transcriptome) locations.
resultsWe characterize and describe systematic errors using overlapping paired reads from high-coverage data. We show that such errors occur in approximately 1 in 1000 base pairs, and that they are highly replicable across experiments. We identify motifs that are frequent at systematic error sites, and describe a classifier that distinguishes heterozygous sites from systematic error. Our classifier is designed to accommodate data from experiments in which the allele frequencies at heterozygous sites are not necessarily 0.5 (such as in the case of RNA-Seq), and can be used with single-end datasets.
conclusionsSystematic errors can easily be mistaken for heterozygous sites in individuals, or for SNPs in population analyses. Systematic errors are particularly problematic in low coverage experiments, or in estimates of allele-specific expression from RNA-Seq data. Our characterization of systematic error has allowed us to develop a program, called SysCall, for identifying and correcting such errors. We conclude that correction of systematic errors is important to consider in the design and interpretation of high-throughput sequencing experiments.
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.