ArticleCurrent genomics2019
Estimating the
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flow Cytometry and K-mer-Based Approach for Genome Size Estimation of Clusterbean: A Case Study.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- A CNN based m5c RNA methylation predictor.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- NIFtHool: an informatics program for identification of NifH proteins using deep neural networks.F1000Research · 2022Article
- CStone: A de novo transcriptome assembler for short-read data that identifies non-chimeric contigs based on underlying graph structure.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Complete genomes of the eukaryotic poultry parasite Histomonas meleagridis: linking sequence analysis with virulence / attenuation.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Genome Size Estimation ofInsects · 2021Article
- Chromosome-Level Assembly of the Southern Rock Bream (Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Twelve quick steps for genome assembly and annotation in the classroom.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Seeing through the forest: The gaze path to purchase.PloS one · 2020Article
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
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
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.