Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26492348›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

DNA Barcoding through Quaternary LDPC Codes.

Elizabeth Tapia, Flavio Spetale, Flavia Krsticevic, Laura Angelone, Pilar Bulacio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Elizabeth TapiaCIFASIS-Conicet Institute, Rosario, Argentina; Fac. de Cs. Exactas e Ingeniería, Universidad Nac. de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina.
Flavio SpetaleCIFASIS-Conicet Institute, Rosario, Argentina; Fac. de Cs. Exactas e Ingeniería, Universidad Nac. de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina.
Flavia KrsticevicCIFASIS-Conicet Institute, Rosario, Argentina.
Laura AngeloneCIFASIS-Conicet Institute, Rosario, Argentina; Fac. de Cs. Exactas e Ingeniería, Universidad Nac. de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina.
Pilar BulacioCIFASIS-Conicet Institute, Rosario, Argentina; Fac. de Cs. Exactas e Ingeniería, Universidad Nac. de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many parallel applications of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies short barcodes able to accurately multiplex a large number of samples are demanded. To address these competitive requirements, the use of error-correcting codes is advised. Current barcoding systems are mostly built from short random error-correcting codes, a feature that strongly limits their multiplexing accuracy and experimental scalability. To overcome these problems on sequencing systems impaired by mismatch errors, the alternative use of binary BCH and pseudo-quaternary Hamming codes has been proposed. However, these codes either fail to provide a fine-scale with regard to size of barcodes (BCH) or have intrinsic poor error correcting abilities (Hamming). Here, the design of barcodes from shortened binary BCH codes and quaternary Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) codes is introduced. Simulation results show that although accurate barcoding systems of high multiplexing capacity can be obtained with any of these codes, using quaternary LDPC codes may be particularly advantageous due to the lower rates of read losses and undetected sample misidentification errors. Even at mismatch error rates of 10(-2) per base, 24-nt LDPC barcodes can be used to multiplex roughly 2000 samples with a sample misidentification error rate in the order of 10(-9) at the expense of a rate of read losses just in the order of 10(-6).

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicProbability

Identifiers

PMID26492348
PMCPMC4619643

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.