ReviewBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2017
Innovations and challenges in detecting long read overlaps: an evaluation of the state-of-the-art.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cochlear Development; New Tools and Approaches.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Application of third-generation sequencing in cancer research.Medical review (2021) · 2021Article
- Comparison of long-read sequencing technologies in interrogating bacteria and fly genomes.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- INDEL detection, the 'Achilles heel' of precise genome editing: a survey of methods for accurate profiling of gene editing induced indels.Nucleic acids research · 2020Review
- Long-read human genome sequencing and its applications.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2020Review
- Benchmarking of long-read correction methods.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Nanopore sequencing technology and tools for genome assembly: computational analysis of the current state, bottlenecks and future directions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Review
- Comprehensive evaluation of non-hybrid genome assembly tools for third-generation PacBio long-read sequence data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Improving the sensitivity of long read overlap detection using grouped short k-mer matches.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- De novo clustering of long reads by gene from transcriptomics data.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Calling Variants in the Clinic: Informed Variant Calling Decisions Based on Biological, Clinical, and Laboratory Variables.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2019Review
- Article
- Piercing the dark matter: bioinformatics of long-range sequencing and mapping.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2018Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.