ArticleMolecular ecology resources2019
In-depth comparative analysis of Illumina
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological Assessment of High-Throughput Sequencing Platforms: Illumina vs. MGI in Clinical-GradeInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- A framework towards implementation of sequencing for antimicrobial-resistant and other health-care-associated pathogens.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Integrating sequencing methods with machine learning for antimicrobial susceptibility testing in pediatric infections: current advances and future insights.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Biotransformation of tobacco-derived Z-abienol into precursors of ambrox by newly identifiedFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Macrotranscriptomics analysis for decoding the role ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Article
- Therapeutic avenues in bone repair: Harnessing an anabolic osteopeptide, PEPITEM, to boost bone growth and prevent bone loss.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Article
- Diversity of Endophytes ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Whole-Genome Sequence Analysis ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Transition from Targeted to Exome Sequencing: A Guide for Clinical Laboratories.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- In-depth comparative analysis of IlluminaMolecular ecology resources · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing of bacterial isolates has become a daily task in many laboratories, generating incredible amounts of data. However, data acquisition is not an end in itself; the goal is to acquire high-quality data useful for understanding genetic relationships. Having a method that could rapidly determine which of the many available run metrics are the most important indicators of overall run quality and having a way to monitor these during a given sequencing run would be extremely helpful to this effect. Therefore, we compared various run metrics across 486 MiSeq runs, from five different machines. By performing a statistical analysis using principal components analysis and a K-means clustering algorithm of the metrics, we were able to validate metric comparisons among instruments, allowing for the development of a predictive algorithm, which permits one to observe whether a given MiSeq run has performed adequately. This algorithm is available in an Excel spreadsheet: that is, MiSeq Instrument & Run (In-Run) Forecast. Our tool can help verify that the quantity/quality of the generated sequencing data consistently meets or exceeds recommended manufacturer expectations. Patterns of deviation from those expectations can be used to assess potential run problems and plan preventative maintenance, which can save valuable time and funding resources.
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.