Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30983868›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi2018

Evaluation of genome scaffolding tools using pooled clone sequencing.

Elif Dal, Can Alkan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Elif DalDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bilkent University , Ankara , Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-1687-3733
Can AlkanDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bilkent University , Ankara , Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-5443-0706

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA sequencing technologies hold great promise in generating information that will guide scientists to understand how the genome effects human health and organismal evolution. The process of generating raw genome sequence data becomes cheaper and faster, but more error-prone. Assembly of such data into high-quality finished genome sequences remains challenging. Many genome assembly tools are available, but they differ in terms of their performance and their final output. More importantly, it remains largely unclear how to best assess the quality of assembled genome sequences. Here we evaluate the accuracies of several genome scaffolding algorithms using two different types of data generated from the genome of the same human individual: whole genome shotgun sequencing (WGS) and pooled clone sequencing (PCS). We observe that it is possible to obtain better assemblies if PCS data are used, compared to using only WGS data. However, the current scaffolding algorithms are developed only for WGS, and PCS-aware scaffolding algorithms remain an open problem.

Indexed as

Genome assembly and scaffoldinghigh-throughput sequencingpooled clone sequencingsystems biology

Identifiers

PMID30983868
PMCPMC6451843

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.