ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017
A computational method for estimating the PCR duplication rate in DNA and RNA-seq experiments.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fastq-dupaway: a fast and memory-efficient tool for deduplication of single- and paired-end NGS data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How error correction affects polymerase chain reaction deduplication: A survey based on unique molecular identifier datasets of short reads.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2025Review
- The impact of PCR duplication on RNAseq data generated using NovaSeq 6000, NovaSeq X, AVITI, and G4 sequencers.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Sequali: efficient and comprehensive quality control of short- and long-read sequencing data.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- The TELCoMB Protocol for High-Sensitivity Detection of ARG-MGE Colocalizations in Complex Microbial Communities.Current protocols · 2024Article
- A real-world multi-center RNA-seq benchmarking study using the Quartet and MAQC reference materials.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Detection of ac4C in human mRNA is preserved upon data reassessment.Molecular cell · 2024Article
- An overlooked phenomenon: complex interactions of potential error sources on the quality of bacterial de novo genome assemblies.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Affordable, accurate and unbiased RNA sequencing by manual library miniaturization: A case study in barley.Plant biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Dietary Supplementation with Milk Lipids Leads to Suppression of Developmental and Behavioral Phenotypes of Hyperexcitable Drosophila Mutants.Neuroscience · 2023Article
- RAPIDViruses · 2023Article
- Back to Basics: A Simplified Improvement to Multiple Displacement Amplification for Microbial Single-Cell Genomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Target-enriched long-read sequencing (TELSeq) contextualizes antimicrobial resistance genes in metagenomes.Microbiome · 2022Article
- Trimming and Validation of Illumina Short Reads Using Trimmomatic, Trinity Assembly, and Assessment of RNA-Seq Data.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Multiple Variant Calling Pipelines in Wheat Whole Exome Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Reduced Function of the Glutathione S-Transferase S1 Suppresses Behavioral Hyperexcitability inG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020Article
- Ancient RNA from Late Pleistocene permafrost and historical canids shows tissue-specific transcriptome survival.PLoS biology · 2019Article
- Comparing Pool-seq, Rapture, and GBS genotyping for inferring weak population structure: The American lobster (Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- CRISPR/CAS9 targeted CAPTURE of mammalian genomic regions for characterization by NGS.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Single-nucleotide variants in human RNA: RNA editing and beyond.Briefings in functional genomics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPCR amplification is an important step in the preparation of DNA sequencing libraries prior to high-throughput sequencing. PCR amplification introduces redundant reads in the sequence data and estimating the PCR duplication rate is important to assess the frequency of such reads. Existing computational methods do not distinguish PCR duplicates from "natural" read duplicates that represent independent DNA fragments and therefore, over-estimate the PCR duplication rate for DNA-seq and RNA-seq experiments.
resultsIn this paper, we present a computational method to estimate the average PCR duplication rate of high-throughput sequence datasets that accounts for natural read duplicates by leveraging heterozygous variants in an individual genome. Analysis of simulated data and exome sequence data from the 1000 Genomes project demonstrated that our method can accurately estimate the PCR duplication rate on paired-end as well as single-end read datasets which contain a high proportion of natural read duplicates. Further, analysis of exome datasets prepared using the Nextera library preparation method indicated that 45-50% of read duplicates correspond to natural read duplicates likely due to fragmentation bias. Finally, analysis of RNA-seq datasets from individuals in the 1000 Genomes project demonstrated that 70-95% of read duplicates observed in such datasets correspond to natural duplicates sampled from genes with high expression and identified outlier samples with a 2-fold greater PCR duplication rate than other samples.
conclusionsThe method described here is a useful tool for estimating the PCR duplication rate of high-throughput sequence datasets and for assessing the fraction of read duplicates that correspond to natural read duplicates. An implementation of the method is available at https://github.com/vibansal/PCRduplicates .
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.