Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28100584›Full record

ArticleGenome research2017

UMI-tools: modeling sequencing errors in Unique Molecular Identifiers to improve quantification accuracy.

Tom Smith, Andreas Heger, Ian Sudbery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,356 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,356citing 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

1,356 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. NAR cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1,296 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

3 authors.

Tom SmithComputational Genomics Analysis and Training Programme, MRC WIMM Centre for Computational Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DS, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0697-8777
Andreas HegerComputational Genomics Analysis and Training Programme, MRC WIMM Centre for Computational Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DS, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7720-0447
Ian SudberyDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5038-0190

Funding

Medical Research Council G1000902Medical Research Council MC_PC_15065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs) are random oligonucleotide barcodes that are increasingly used in high-throughput sequencing experiments. Through a UMI, identical copies arising from distinct molecules can be distinguished from those arising through PCR amplification of the same molecule. However, bioinformatic methods to leverage the information from UMIs have yet to be formalized. In particular, sequencing errors in the UMI sequence are often ignored or else resolved in an ad hoc manner. We show that errors in the UMI sequence are common and introduce network-based methods to account for these errors when identifying PCR duplicates. Using these methods, we demonstrate improved quantification accuracy both under simulated conditions and real iCLIP and single-cell RNA-seq data sets. Reproducibility between iCLIP replicates and single-cell RNA-seq clustering are both improved using our proposed network-based method, demonstrating the value of properly accounting for errors in UMIs. These methods are implemented in the open source UMI-tools software package.

Indexed as

SoftwareHumansSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID28100584
PMCPMC5340976

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.