Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24067931›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2014

Three-stage quality control strategies for DNA re-sequencing data.

Yan Guo, Fei Ye, Quanghu Sheng, Travis Clark, David C Samuels

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 179 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Whole-Genome Sequencing ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

47 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

5 authors.

Yan Guo
Fei Ye
Quanghu Sheng
Travis Clark
David C Samuels

Funding

Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment Research ProgramP30CA068485 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MATTHEW J TYSKA · 1995 to 2026
$172.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA068485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have greatly improved our ability to detect genomic variants for biomedical research. In particular, NGS technologies have been recently applied with great success to the discovery of mutations associated with the growth of various tumours and in rare Mendelian diseases. The advance in NGS technologies has also created significant challenges in bioinformatics. One of the major challenges is quality control of the sequencing data. In this review, we discuss the proper quality control procedures and parameters for Illumina technology-based human DNA re-sequencing at three different stages of sequencing: raw data, alignment and variant calling. Monitoring quality control metrics at each of the three stages of NGS data provides unique and independent evaluations of data quality from differing perspectives. Properly conducting quality control protocols at all three stages and correctly interpreting the quality control results are crucial to ensure a successful and meaningful study.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDNAGene LibraryHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasmsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuality ControlSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, DNADNAalignmentFASTQquality controlsequencingvariant calling

Identifiers

PMID24067931
PMCPMC4492405
OpenAlexW2006921756

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.