ArticleNature methods2014
SeqControl: process control for DNA sequencing.
Article in Nature methods, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chromium-Tanned Leather and Microbial Consortia: Identification of Taxa With Biodegradation Potential and Chromium Tolerance.Environmental microbiology reports · 2025Article
- Mapinsights: deep exploration of quality issues and error profiles in high-throughput sequence data.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Chiral DNA sequences as commutable controls for clinical genomics.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Valection: design optimization for validation and verification studies.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- The parameter sensitivity of random forests.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- The path to routine use of genomic biomarkers in the cancer clinic.Genome research · 2015Review
- Combining tumor genome simulation with crowdsourcing to benchmark somatic single-nucleotide-variant detection.Nature methods · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As high-throughput sequencing continues to increase in speed and throughput, routine clinical and industrial application draws closer. These 'production' settings will require enhanced quality monitoring and quality control to optimize output and reduce costs. We developed SeqControl, a framework for predicting sequencing quality and coverage using a set of 15 metrics describing overall coverage, coverage distribution, basewise coverage and basewise quality. Using whole-genome sequences of 27 prostate cancers and 26 normal references, we derived multivariate models that predict sequencing quality and depth. SeqControl robustly predicted how much sequencing was required to reach a given coverage depth (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.993), accurately classified clinically relevant formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples, and made predictions from as little as one-eighth of a sequencing lane (AUC = 0.967). These techniques can be immediately incorporated into existing sequencing pipelines to monitor data quality in real time. SeqControl is available at http://labs.oicr.on.ca/Boutros-lab/software/SeqControl/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25173705What 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.