Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28414526›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2017

Assessing the Impact of Assemblers on Virus Detection in a De Novo Metagenomic Analysis Pipeline.

Daniel J White, Jing Wang, Richard J Hall

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Daniel J White1 Landcare Research , Auckland, New Zealand .
Jing Wang2 Institute of Environmental Science and Research at the National Centre for Biosecurity and Infectious Disease , Upper Hutt, New Zealand .
Richard J Hall3 Animal Health Laboratory, Investigation and Diagnostic Centres and Response, Ministry for Primary Industries-Manatū Ahu Matua , Upper Hutt, New Zealand .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Applying high-throughput sequencing to pathogen discovery is a relatively new field, the objective of which is to find disease-causing agents when little or no background information on disease is available. Key steps in the process are the generation of millions of sequence reads from an infected tissue sample, followed by assembly of these reads into longer, contiguous stretches of nucleotide sequences, and then identification of the contigs by matching them to known databases, such as those stored at GenBank or Ensembl. This technique, that is, de novo metagenomics, is particularly useful when the pathogen is viral and strong discriminatory power can be achieved. However, recently, we found that striking differences in results can be achieved when different assemblers were used. In this study, we test formally the impact of five popular assemblers (MIRA, VELVET, METAVELVET, SPADES, and OMEGA) on the detection of a novel virus and assembly of its whole genome in a data set for which we have confirmed the presence of the virus by empirical laboratory techniques, and compare the overall performance between assemblers. Our results show that if results from only one assembler are considered, biologically important reads can easily be overlooked. The impacts of these results on the field of pathogen discovery are considered.

Indexed as

Genome, ViralMetagenomeSoftwareAnimalsContig MappingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPalaeognathaeVirus Diseasesalgorithmsassemblersde novo metagenomicspathogen discoverytest

Identifiers

PMID28414526
PMCPMC5610382

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.