Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29851291›Full record

ReviewCurrent protocols in molecular biology2018

Overview of Next-Generation Sequencing Technologies.

Barton E Slatko, Andrew F Gardner, Frederick M Ausubel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current protocols in molecular biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 400 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
400citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

400 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Genetic analysis of neurodegenerative diseases.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

340 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Barton E SlatkoNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts.
Andrew F GardnerNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts.
Frederick M AusubelDepartment of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Technical Mother Machine CoreP01AI083214 · NIAID · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Michael S Gilmore · 2009 to 2026
$39.4M
ROLE OF DIETARY CONSTITUENTS ON GENE EXPRESSION IN INTESTINAL EPITHELIUMP30DK040561 · NIDDK · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI CHRISTOPHER P DUGGAN · 1994 to 2026
$31.6M
NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI083214NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK040561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High throughput DNA sequencing methodology (next generation sequencing; NGS) has rapidly evolved over the past 15 years and new methods are continually being commercialized. As the technology develops, so do increases in the number of corresponding applications for basic and applied science. The purpose of this review is to provide a compendium of NGS methodologies and associated applications. Each brief discussion is followed by web links to the manufacturer and/or web-based visualizations. Keyword searches, such as with Google, may also provide helpful internet links and information. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Indexed as

GenomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansnext-generation sequencingNGSSanger sequencing

Identifiers

PMID29851291
PMCPMC6020069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.