Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28003261›Full record

ReviewBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2017

Innovations and challenges in detecting long read overlaps: an evaluation of the state-of-the-art.

Justin Chu, Hamid Mohamadi, René L Warren, Chen Yang, Inanç Birol

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cochlear Development; New Tools and Approaches.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Benchmarking of long-read correction methods.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Justin ChuUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Hamid MohamadiUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
René L WarrenCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4S6, Canada.
Chen YangUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Inanç BirolUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.

Funding

De Novo Assembly Tools: Research with Unbiased Engines - Renewal (DNA-TRUER)R01HG007182 · NHGRI · PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY · PI BIROL, INANC · 2014 to 2022
$1.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG007182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying overlaps between error-prone long reads, specifically those from Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) and Pacific Biosciences (PB), is essential for certain downstream applications, including error correction and de novo assembly. Though akin to the read-to-reference alignment problem, read-to-read overlap detection is a distinct problem that can benefit from specialized algorithms that perform efficiently and robustly on high error rate long reads. Here, we review the current state-of-the-art read-to-read overlap tools for error-prone long reads, including BLASR, DALIGNER, MHAP, GraphMap and Minimap. These specialized bioinformatics tools differ not just in their algorithmic designs and methodology, but also in their robustness of performance on a variety of datasets, time and memory efficiency and scalability. We highlight the algorithmic features of these tools, as well as their potential issues and biases when utilizing any particular method. To supplement our review of the algorithms, we benchmarked these tools, tracking their resource needs and computational performance, and assessed the specificity and precision of each. In the versions of the tools tested, we observed that Minimap is the most computationally efficient, specific and sensitive method on the ONT datasets tested; whereas GraphMap and DALIGNER are the most specific and sensitive methods on the tested PB datasets. The concepts surveyed may apply to future sequencing technologies, as scalability is becoming more relevant with increased sequencing throughput. CONTACT: cjustin@bcgsc.ca , ibirol@bcgsc.ca. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

SoftwareAlgorithmsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID28003261
PMCPMC5408847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.