ArticleNature biotechnology2017
Highly accurate fluorogenic DNA sequencing with information theory-based error correction.
Article in Nature biotechnology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- A fuzzy sequencer for rapid DNA fragment counting and genotyping.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Reconstruction algorithms for DNA-storage systems.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Fluorogenic Reactions in Chemical Biology: Seeing Chemistry in Cells.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2023Review
- Methods to improve the accuracy of next-generation sequencing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Evaluation of the correctable decoding sequencing as a new powerful strategy for DNA sequencing.Life science alliance · 2022Article
- Hamming-shifting graph of genomic short reads: Efficient construction and its application for compression.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- A virtual sequencer reveals the dephasing patterns in error-correction code DNA sequencing.National science review · 2021Article
- Nucleic Acids Analysis.Science China. Chemistry · 2021Review
- Information Theory in Computational Biology: Where We Stand Today.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Benchmarking of computational error-correction methods for next-generation sequencing data.Genome biology · 2020Article
- Data storage in DNA with fewer synthesis cycles using composite DNA letters.Nature biotechnology · 2019Article
- Locus-patterned sequence oriented enrichment for multi-dimensional gene analysis.Chemical science · 2019Article
- A head-to-toe makeover for classical sequencing-by-synthesis helps users to squeeze more out of each base.National science review · 2019Article
- Detecting Rare Mutations and DNA Damage with Sequencing-Based Methods.Trends in biotechnology · 2018Review
- DNA sequencing at ultra-high fidelity.Nature biotechnology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eliminating errors in next-generation DNA sequencing has proved challenging. Here we present error-correction code (ECC) sequencing, a method to greatly improve sequencing accuracy by combining fluorogenic sequencing-by-synthesis (SBS) with an information theory-based error-correction algorithm. ECC embeds redundancy in sequencing reads by creating three orthogonal degenerate sequences, generated by alternate dual-base reactions. This is similar to encoding and decoding strategies that have proved effective in detecting and correcting errors in information communication and storage. We show that, when combined with a fluorogenic SBS chemistry with raw accuracy of 98.1%, ECC sequencing provides single-end, error-free sequences up to 200 bp. ECC approaches should enable accurate identification of extremely rare genomic variations in various applications in biology and medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29106407What 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.