ArticleNucleic acids research2015
NGS-eval: NGS Error analysis and novel sequence VAriant detection tooL.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Music of metagenomics-a review of its applications, analysis pipeline, and associated tools.Functional & integrative genomics · 2022Review
- Article
- Sequencing error profiles of Illumina sequencing instruments.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Sequencing-based microsatellite instability testing using as few as six markers for high-throughput clinical diagnostics.Human mutation · 2020Article
- Systematic evaluation of error rates and causes in short samples in next-generation sequencing.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Comparative analyses of the major royal jelly protein gene cluster in three Apis species with long amplicon sequencing.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2017Article
- Production of individualized V gene databases reveals high levels of immunoglobulin genetic diversity.Nature communications · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massively parallel sequencing of microbial genetic markers (MGMs) is used to uncover the species composition in a multitude of ecological niches. These sequencing runs often contain a sample with known composition that can be used to evaluate the sequencing quality or to detect novel sequence variants. With NGS-eval, the reads from such (mock) samples can be used to (i) explore the differences between the reads and their references and to (ii) estimate the sequencing error rate. This tool maps these reads to references and calculates as well as visualizes the different types of sequencing errors. Clearly, sequencing errors can only be accurately calculated if the reference sequences are correct. However, even with known strains, it is not straightforward to select the correct references from databases. We previously analysed a pyrosequencing dataset from a mock sample to estimate sequencing error rates and detected sequence variants in our mock community, allowing us to obtain an accurate error estimation. Here, we demonstrate the variant detection and error analysis capability of NGS-eval with Illumina MiSeq reads from the same mock community. While tailored towards the field of metagenomics, this server can be used for any type of MGM-based reads. NGS-eval is available at http://www.ibi.vu.nl/programs/ngsevalwww/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.