Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26020012›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Swabs to genomes: a comprehensive workflow.

Madison I Dunitz, Jenna M Lang, Guillaume Jospin, Aaron E Darling, Jonathan A Eisen, David A Coil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2015. 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. Screening Salamanders for Symbionts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Draft Genome Sequences ofGenome announcements · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Madison I Dunitz *UC Davis, Genome Center, USA.
Jenna M Lang *UC Davis, Genome Center, USA.
Guillaume JospinUC Davis, Genome Center, USA.
Aaron E Darlingithree institute, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.
Jonathan A EisenUC Davis, Genome Center, USA.
David A CoilUC Davis, Genome Center, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sequencing, assembly, and basic analysis of microbial genomes, once a painstaking and expensive undertaking, has become much easier for research labs with access to standard molecular biology and computational tools. However, there are a confusing variety of options available for DNA library preparation and sequencing, and inexperience with bioinformatics can pose a significant barrier to entry for many who may be interested in microbial genomics. The objective of the present study was to design, test, troubleshoot, and publish a simple, comprehensive workflow from the collection of an environmental sample (a swab) to a published microbial genome; empowering even a lab or classroom with limited resources and bioinformatics experience to perform it.

Indexed as

BioinformaticsGenome assemblyGenome sequencingMicrobial genomicsWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID26020012
PMCPMC4435499

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.