Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23924250›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2013

Rapid quantification of sequence repeats to resolve the size, structure and contents of bacterial genomes.

David Williams, William L Trimble, Meghan Shilts, Folker Meyer, Howard Ochman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2013. 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. Early Detection of BothInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A chromosome-level genome assembly ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Estimation of Genome Size in the Endemic SpeciesPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Draft Genome Sequence ofGenome announcements · 2017
    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

5 authors.

David WilliamsDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA.
William L Trimble
Meghan Shilts
Folker Meyer
Howard Ochman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe numerous classes of repeats often impede the assembly of genome sequences from the short reads provided by new sequencing technologies. We demonstrate a simple and rapid means to ascertain the repeat structure and total size of a bacterial or archaeal genome without the need for assembly by directly analyzing the abundances of distinct k-mers among reads.

resultsThe sensitivity of this procedure to resolve variation within a bacterial species is demonstrated: genome sizes and repeat structure of five environmental strains of E. coli from short Illumina reads were estimated by this method, and total genome sizes corresponded well with those obtained for the same strains by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. In addition, this approach was applied to read-sets for completed genomes and shown to be accurate over a wide range of microbial genome sizes.

conclusionsApplication of these procedures, based solely on k-mer abundances in short read data sets, allows aspects of genome structure to be resolved that are not apparent from conventional short read assemblies. This knowledge of the repetitive content of genomes provides insights into genome evolution and diversity.

Indexed as

Genome SizeGenomicsSequence AnalysisEscherichia coliGene DosageGenome, BacterialRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23924250
PMCPMC3751351

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.