ArticleBMC medical genomics2015
Hybrid de novo tandem repeat detection using short and long reads.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pan-SSR architecture in Acrossocheilus fasciatus links cross-assembly repeat conservation, repeat-unit count variation, and genomic context.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2026Article
- RepAHR: an improved approach for de novo repeat identification by assembly of the high-frequency reads.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Article
- GtTR: Bayesian estimation of absolute tandem repeat copy number using sequence capture and high throughput sequencing.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Satellite DNA evolution: old ideas, new approaches.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2018Review
- TAREAN: a computational tool for identification and characterization of satellite DNA from unassembled short reads.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs one of the most studied genome rearrangements, tandem repeats have a considerable impact on genetic backgrounds of inherited diseases. Many methods designed for tandem repeat detection on reference sequences obtain high quality results. However, in the case of a de novo context, where no reference sequence is available, tandem repeat detection remains a difficult problem. The short reads obtained with the second-generation sequencing methods are not long enough to span regions that contain long repeats. This length limitation was tackled by the long reads obtained with the third-generation sequencing platforms such as Pacific Biosciences technologies. Nevertheless, the gain on the read length came with a significant increase of the error rate. The main objective of nowadays studies on long reads is to handle the high error rate up to 16%.
methodsIn this paper we present MixTaR, the first de novo method for tandem repeat detection that combines the high-quality of short reads and the large length of long reads. Our hybrid algorithm uses the set of short reads for tandem repeat pattern detection based on a de Bruijn graph. These patterns are then validated using the long reads, and the tandem repeat sequences are constructed using local greedy assemblies.
resultsMixTaR is tested with both simulated and real reads from complex organisms. For a complete analysis of its robustness to errors, we use short and long reads with different error rates. The results are then analysed in terms of number of tandem repeats detected and the length of their patterns.
conclusionsOur method shows high precision and sensitivity. With low false positive rates even for highly erroneous reads, MixTaR is able to detect accurate tandem repeats with pattern lengths varying within a significant interval.
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.