Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28185553›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Removing duplicate reads using graphics processing units.

Andrea Manconi, Marco Moscatelli, Giuliano Armano, Matteo Gnocchi, Alessandro Orro, Luciano Milanesi

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Transcriptomic Analysis ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Andrea ManconiInstitute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Via Fratelli Cervi, 93, Segrate (Mi), 20090, Italy. andrea.manconi@itb.cnr.it.
Marco MoscatelliInstitute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Via Fratelli Cervi, 93, Segrate (Mi), 20090, Italy.
Giuliano ArmanoDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari, P.zza D'Armi, Cagliari (CA), 09123, Italy.
Matteo GnocchiInstitute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Via Fratelli Cervi, 93, Segrate (Mi), 20090, Italy.
Alessandro OrroInstitute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Via Fratelli Cervi, 93, Segrate (Mi), 20090, Italy.
Luciano MilanesiInstitute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Via Fratelli Cervi, 93, Segrate (Mi), 20090, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring library construction polymerase chain reaction is used to enrich the DNA before sequencing. Typically, this process generates duplicate read sequences. Removal of these artifacts is mandatory, as they can affect the correct interpretation of data in several analyses. Ideally, duplicate reads should be characterized by identical nucleotide sequences. However, due to sequencing errors, duplicates may also be nearly-identical. Removing nearly-identical duplicates can result in a notable computational effort. To deal with this challenge, we recently proposed a GPU method aimed at removing identical and nearly-identical duplicates generated with an Illumina platform. The method implements an approach based on prefix-suffix comparison. Read sequences with identical prefix are considered potential duplicates. Then, their suffixes are compared to identify and remove those that are actually duplicated. Although the method can be efficiently used to remove duplicates, there are some limitations that need to be overcome. In particular, it cannot to detect potential duplicates in the event that prefixes are longer than 27 bases, and it does not provide support for paired-end read libraries. Moreover, large clusters of potential duplicates are split into smaller with the aim to guarantees a reasonable computing time. This heuristic may affect the accuracy of the analysis.

resultsIn this work we propose GPU-DupRemoval, a new implementation of our method able to (i) cluster reads without constraints on the maximum length of the prefixes, (ii) support both single- and paired-end read libraries, and (iii) analyze large clusters of potential duplicates.

conclusionsDue to the massive parallelization obtained by exploiting graphics cards, GPU-DupRemoval removes duplicate reads faster than other cutting-edge solutions, while outperforming most of them in terms of amount of duplicates reads.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyDNAPolymerase Chain ReactionSequence Analysis, DNADNACUDADuplicate readsGraphics processing unitsNext generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID28185553
PMCPMC5123249

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.