ArticlePeerJ2015
GenomePeek-an online tool for prokaryotic genome and metagenome analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospects of advanced metagenomics and meta-omics in the investigation of phytomicrobiome to forecast beneficial and pathogenic response.Molecular biology reports · 2022Review
- Veronia nyctiphanis gen. nov., sp. nov., Isolated from the Stomach of the Euphausiid Nyctiphanes simplex (Hansen, 1911) in the Gulf of California, and Reclassification of Enterovibrio pacificus as Veronia pacifica comb. nov.Current microbiology · 2021Article
- Decoding diversity in a coral reef fish species complex with restricted range using metagenomic sequencing of gut contents.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- OXA-48 Carbapenemase inMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Article
- Diel population and functional synchrony of microbial communities on coral reefs.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Defending Our Public Biological Databases as a Global Critical Infrastructure.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Article
- Correcting for 16S rRNA gene copy numbers in microbiome surveys remains an unsolved problem.Microbiome · 2018Article
- Draft Genome Sequences of FiveGenome announcements · 2017Article
- Metatranscriptomic Evidence for Direct Interspecies Electron Transfer between Geobacter and Methanothrix Species in Methanogenic Rice Paddy Soils.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2017Article
- A Primer on Infectious Disease Bacterial Genomics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016Review
- Metagenomic exploration of the bacterial community structure at Paradip Port, Odisha, India.Genomics data · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As more and more prokaryotic sequencing takes place, a method to quickly and accurately analyze this data is needed. Previous tools are mainly designed for metagenomic analysis and have limitations; such as long runtimes and significant false positive error rates. The online tool GenomePeek (edwards.sdsu.edu/GenomePeek) was developed to analyze both single genome and metagenome sequencing files, quickly and with low error rates. GenomePeek uses a sequence assembly approach where reads to a set of conserved genes are extracted, assembled and then aligned against the highly specific reference database. GenomePeek was found to be faster than traditional approaches while still keeping error rates low, as well as offering unique data visualization options.
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.