Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30020410›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

Scaling read aligners to hundreds of threads on general-purpose processors.

Ben Langmead, Christopher Wilks, Valentin Antonescu, Rone Charles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 573 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
573citing 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

573 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. NNature · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

513 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

4 authors.

Ben LangmeadDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Christopher WilksDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Valentin AntonescuDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Rone CharlesDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Hardening and Scaling Core Genomics SoftwareR01GM118568 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LANGMEAD, BENJAMIN THOMAS · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM118568
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: General-purpose processors can now contain many dozens of processor cores and support hundreds of simultaneous threads of execution. To make best use of these threads, genomics software must contend with new and subtle computer architecture issues. We discuss some of these and propose methods for improving thread scaling in tools that analyze each read independently, such as read aligners. Results: We implement these methods in new versions of Bowtie, Bowtie 2 and HISAT. We greatly improve thread scaling in many scenarios, including on the recent Intel Xeon Phi architecture. We also highlight how bottlenecks are exacerbated by variable-record-length file formats like FASTQ and suggest changes that enable superior scaling. Availability and implementation: Experiments for this study: https://github.com/BenLangmead/bowtie-scaling. Bowtie: http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net. Bowtie 2: http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/bowtie2. HISAT: http://www.ccb.jhu.edu/software/hisat. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenomicsSoftwareComputer Systems

Identifiers

PMID30020410
PMCPMC6361242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.