Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30598087›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2018

Multi-CSAR: a multiple reference-based contig scaffolder using algebraic rearrangements.

Kun-Tze Chen, Hsin-Ting Shen, Chin Lung Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Kun-Tze ChenDepartment of Computer Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan.
Hsin-Ting ShenDepartment of Computer Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan.
Chin Lung LuDepartment of Computer Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan. cllu@cs.nthu.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the important steps in the process of assembling a genome sequence from short reads is scaffolding, in which the contigs in a draft genome are ordered and oriented into scaffolds. Currently, several scaffolding tools based on a single reference genome have been developed. However, a single reference genome may not be sufficient alone for a scaffolder to generate correct scaffolds of a target draft genome, especially when the evolutionary relationship between the target and reference genomes is distant or some rearrangements occur between them. This motivates the need to develop scaffolding tools that can order and orient the contigs of the target genome using multiple reference genomes.

resultsIn this work, we utilize a heuristic method to develop a new scaffolder called Multi-CSAR that is able to accurately scaffold a target draft genome based on multiple reference genomes, each of which does not need to be complete. Our experimental results on real datasets show that Multi-CSAR outperforms other two multiple reference-based scaffolding tools, Ragout and MeDuSa, in terms of many average metrics, such as sensitivity, precision, F-score, genome coverage, NGA50, scaffold number and running time.

conclusionsMulti-CSAR is a multiple reference-based scaffolder that can efficiently produce more accurate scaffolds of a target draft genome by referring to multiple complete and/or incomplete genomes of related organisms. Its stand-alone program is available for download at https://github.com/ablab-nthu/Multi-CSAR.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsContig MappingHeuristicsBioinformaticsContigMultiple reference genomesScaffoldingSequencing

Identifiers

PMID30598087
PMCPMC6311912

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.