Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22546054›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2012

Current challenges in de novo plant genome sequencing and assembly.

Michael C Schatz, Jan Witkowski, W Richard McCombie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

80 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Draft Genome Assembly ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. A Brief Overview of the Epigenetic Regulatory Mechanisms in Plants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Breeding science · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Michael C SchatzCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724, USA. mschatz@cshl.edu
Jan Witkowski
W Richard McCombie

Funding

Computational Methods for Genome Assembly, Transcript Assembly, and Variant DiscoveryR01HG006677 · NHGRI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SALZBERG, STEVEN L. · 2011 to 2025
$10.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006677NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006677-12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome sequencing is now affordable, but assembling plant genomes de novo remains challenging. We assess the state of the art of assembly and review the best practices for the community.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantSoftwareAlgorithmsChromosomes, PlantComputational BiologyDatabases, Nucleic AcidDNA, PlantGenomic LibraryMolecular Sequence AnnotationPlantsSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID22546054
PMCPMC3446297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.