Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24502796›Full record

ReviewBioTechniques2014

Library construction for next-generation sequencing: overviews and challenges.

Steven R Head, H Kiyomi Komori, Sarah A LaMere, Thomas Whisenant, Filip Van Nieuwerburgh, Daniel R Salomon, Phillip Ordoukhanian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioTechniques, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 273 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
273citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

273 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Microbial genomics · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

213 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

7 authors.

Steven R HeadNGS and Microarray Core Facility, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA.
H Kiyomi KomoriDepartment of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA.
Sarah A LaMereDepartment of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA.
Thomas WhisenantDepartment of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA.
Filip Van NieuwerburghLaboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Daniel R SalomonDepartment of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA.
Phillip OrdoukhanianNGS and Microarray Core Facility, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA.

Funding

Structural Basis of Immune Recognition of Glycosylated AntigensU54GM062116 · NIGMS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI SASISEKHARAN, RAM · 2001 to 2010
$80.3M
Quantitative Biology CoreU19AI063603 · NIAID · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI YATES III, JOHN R · 2004 to 2015
$26.4M
Proteogenomics for Organ Transplantation: Prediction, Diagnosis, InterventionU01AI084146 · NIAID · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ABECASSIS, MICHAEL M · 2009 to 2013
$10.5M
Ribonucleoprotein Complexes Regulating T-Cell ActivationU01GM094653 · NIGMS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI SALOMON, DANIEL R., WILLIAMSON, JAMES R · 2010 to 2014
$5.7M
Protein-Glycan Interaction Resource of the CFGR24GM098791 · NIGMS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI CUMMINGS, RICHARD D, PAULSON, JAMES C · 2011 to 2013
$2.6M
Scripps Translational Science InstituteTL1TR001113 · NCATS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI TOPOL, ERIC JEFFREY · 2013 to 2017
$1.0M
PROTEIN-CARBOHYDRATE INTERACTIONS IN CELL COMMUNICATIONR24GM061502 · NIGMS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI PAULSON, JAMES C. · 2000 to 2000
$44k
IL-4 INDUCIBLE GENES: INDENTIFICATION &CHARACTERIZATIONF32AI008353 · NIAID · OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI WEISS, DEBORAH L · 1990 to 1993
–
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001113NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI084146NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI063603NIAID NIH HHS U54 AI008353NIGMS NIH HHS R24 GM09879NIGMS NIH HHS R24 GM098791NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM094653NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM062116PHS HHS U19 A1063603
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing, also known as next-generation sequencing (NGS), has revolutionized genomic research. In recent years, NGS technology has steadily improved, with costs dropping and the number and range of sequencing applications increasing exponentially. Here, we examine the critical role of sequencing library quality and consider important challenges when preparing NGS libraries from DNA and RNA sources. Factors such as the quantity and physical characteristics of the RNA or DNA source material as well as the desired application (i.e., genome sequencing, targeted sequencing, RNA-seq, ChIP-seq, RIP-seq, and methylation) are addressed in the context of preparing high quality sequencing libraries. In addition, the current methods for preparing NGS libraries from single cells are also discussed.

Indexed as

Gene LibraryGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNASequence Analysis, RNAAnimalsBiotechnologyDNA MethylationHumansImmunoprecipitationMiceSequence AlignmentChIP-seqdeep sequencingDNADNA-seqlibrary preparationnext-generation sequencingRIP-seqRNARNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID24502796
PMCPMC4351865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.