Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31015787›Full record

ArticleCurrent genomics2019

Estimating the

Swati C Manekar, Shailesh R Sathe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Swati C ManekarDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India.
Shailesh R SatheDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn bioinformatics, estimation of k-mer abundance histograms or just enumerat-ing the number of unique k-mers and the number of singletons are desirable in many genome sequence analysis applications. The applications include predicting genome sizes, data pre-processing for de Bruijn graph assembly methods (tune runtime parameters for analysis tools), repeat detection, sequenc-ing coverage estimation, measuring sequencing error rates, etc. Different methods for cardinality estima-tion in sequencing data have been developed in recent years.

objectiveIn this article, we present a comparative assessment of the different k-mer frequency estima-tion programs (ntCard, KmerGenie, KmerStream and Khmer (abundance-dist-single.py and unique-kmers.py) to assess their relative merits and demerits.

methodsPrincipally, the miscounts/error-rates of these tools are analyzed by rigorous experimental analysis for a varied range of k. We also present experimental results on runtime, scalability for larger datasets, memory, CPU utilization as well as parallelism of k-mer frequency estimation methods.

resultsThe results indicate that ntCard is more accurate in estimating F0, f1 and full k-mer abundance histograms compared with other methods. ntCard is the fastest but it has more memory requirements compared to KmerGenie.

conclusionThe results of this evaluation may serve as a roadmap to potential users and practitioners of streaming algorithms for estimating k-mer coverage frequencies, to assist them in identifying an appro-priate method. Such results analysis also help researchers to discover remaining open research ques-tions, effective combinations of existing techniques and possible avenues for future research.

Indexed as

Distinct k-mersHashingHigh-throughput sequencingK-mer abundance histogramSingleton k-mersStreaming algorithms

Identifiers

PMID31015787
PMCPMC6446480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.