ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2016
RNF: a general framework to evaluate NGS read mappers.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of human genetic variation on Epstein-Barr virus sequence diversity.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- SimBA: A methodology and tools for evaluating the performance of RNA-Seq bioinformatic pipelines.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Simulating Next-Generation Sequencing Datasets from Empirical Mutation and Sequencing Models.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationRead simulators combined with alignment evaluation tools provide the most straightforward way to evaluate and compare mappers. Simulation of reads is accompanied by information about their positions in the source genome. This information is then used to evaluate alignments produced by the mapper. Finally, reports containing statistics of successful read alignments are created.In default of standards for encoding read origins, every evaluation tool has to be made explicitly compatible with the simulator used to generate reads.
resultsTo solve this obstacle, we have created a generic format Read Naming Format (Rnf) for assigning read names with encoded information about original positions. Futhermore, we have developed an associated software package RnfTools containing two principal components. MIShmash applies one of popular read simulating tools (among DwgSim, Art, Mason, CuReSim, etc.) and transforms the generated reads into Rnf format. LAVEnder evaluates then a given read mapper using simulated reads in Rnf format. A special attention is payed to mapping qualities that serve for parametrization of Roc curves, and to evaluation of the effect of read sample contamination. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: RnfTools: http://karel-brinda.github.io/rnftools Spec. of Rnf: http://karel-brinda.github.io/rnf-spec CONTACT: karel.brinda@univ-mlv.fr.
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.