Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26500767›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2015

Rcorrector: efficient and accurate error correction for Illumina RNA-seq reads.

Li Song, Liliana Florea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 296 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
296citing 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

296 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Identification of a candidate self-incompatibility locus in beet (Beta vulgaris).TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Life science alliance · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

236 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Li SongDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 21218 USA.
Liliana FloreaDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 21218 USA ; McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, 21205 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNext-generation sequencing of cellular RNA (RNA-seq) is rapidly becoming the cornerstone of transcriptomic analysis. However, sequencing errors in the already short RNA-seq reads complicate bioinformatics analyses, in particular alignment and assembly. Error correction methods have been highly effective for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) reads, but are unsuitable for RNA-seq reads, owing to the variation in gene expression levels and alternative splicing.

findingsWe developed a k-mer based method, Rcorrector, to correct random sequencing errors in Illumina RNA-seq reads. Rcorrector uses a De Bruijn graph to compactly represent all trusted k-mers in the input reads. Unlike WGS read correctors, which use a global threshold to determine trusted k-mers, Rcorrector computes a local threshold at every position in a read.

conclusionsRcorrector has an accuracy higher than or comparable to existing methods, including the only other method (SEECER) designed for RNA-seq reads, and is more time and memory efficient. With a 5 GB memory footprint for 100 million reads, it can be run on virtually any desktop or server. The software is available free of charge under the GNU General Public License from https://github.com/mourisl/Rcorrector/.

Indexed as

RNASequence Analysis, RNARNAError correctionk-mersNext-generation sequencingRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID26500767
PMCPMC4615873

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.