ArticleTurkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi2018
Evaluation of genome scaffolding tools using pooled clone sequencing.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.