ArticleNucleic acids research2017
A systematic comparison of error correction enzymes by next-generation sequencing.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engineered eMutS based magnetic separation system for high-fidelity DNA synthesis.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026Article
- Scalable and cost-efficient custom gene library assembly from oligopools.Science advances · 2026Article
- Long oligos: direct chemical synthesis of genes with up to 1728 nucleotides.Chemical science · 2025Article
- Optimization of PCA Error Correction Conditions to Improve Efficiency of Virus Genome De Novo Synthesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Strategies to identify and edit improvements in synthetic genome segments episomally.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- DIMPLE: deep insertion, deletion, and missense mutation libraries for exploring protein variation in evolution, disease, and biology.Genome biology · 2023Article
- Serial enrichment of heteroduplex DNA using a MutS-magnetic bead system.Biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Long oligodeoxynucleotides: chemical synthesis, isolation via catching-by-polymerization, verification via sequencing, and gene expression demonstration.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2023Article
- Quantification of synthetic errors during chemical synthesis of DNA and its suppression by non-canonical nucleosides.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Oligo Pools as an Affordable Source of Synthetic DNA for Cost-Effective Library Construction in Protein- and Metabolic Pathway Engineering.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2022Review
- Purification of multiplex oligonucleotide libraries by synthesis and selection.Nature biotechnology · 2022Article
- Article
- DropSynth 2.0: high-fidelity multiplexed gene synthesis in emulsions.Nucleic acids research · 2020Article
- A Characterization of the DNA Data Storage Channel.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Functional assays for transcription mechanisms in high-throughput.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2019Review
- Article
- Multiplexed gene synthesis in emulsions for exploring protein functional landscapes.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Gene synthesis, the process of assembling gene-length fragments from shorter groups of oligonucleotides (oligos), is becoming an increasingly important tool in molecular and synthetic biology. The length, quality and cost of gene synthesis are limited by errors produced during oligo synthesis and subsequent assembly. Enzymatic error correction methods are cost-effective means to ameliorate errors in gene synthesis. Previous analyses of these methods relied on cloning and Sanger sequencing to evaluate their efficiencies, limiting quantitative assessment. Here, we develop a method to quantify errors in synthetic DNA by next-generation sequencing. We analyzed errors in model gene assemblies and systematically compared six different error correction enzymes across 11 conditions. We find that ErrASE and T7 Endonuclease I are the most effective at decreasing average error rates (up to 5.8-fold relative to the input), whereas MutS is the best for increasing the number of perfect assemblies (up to 25.2-fold). We are able to quantify differential specificities such as ErrASE preferentially corrects C/G transversions whereas T7 Endonuclease I preferentially corrects A/T transversions. More generally, this experimental and computational pipeline is a fast, scalable and extensible way to analyze errors in gene assemblies, to profile error correction methods, and to benchmark DNA synthesis methods.
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.