Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31472161›Full record

ArticleiScience2019

Sequencing Technologies and Analyses: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?

Vikas Bansal, Christina Boucher

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Research evolution of flat peach (Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Heliyon · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Vikas BansalDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Christina BoucherDepartment of Computer and Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Funding

Developing Computational Methods for Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistant AgentsR01AI141810 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BOUCHER, CHRISTINA, PROSPERI, MATTIA · 2019 to 2023
$2.1M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI141810
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A wave of technologies transformed sequencing over a decade ago into the high-throughput era, demanding research in new computational methods to analyze these data. The applications of these sequencing technologies have continuously expanded since then. The RECOMB Satellite Workshop on Massively Parallel Sequencing (RECOMB-Seq) meeting, established in 2011, brings together leading researchers in computational genomics and genomic biology to discuss emerging frontiers in algorithm development for massively parallel sequencing data. The ninth edition of this workshop was held in Washington, DC, in George Washington University on May 3 and 4, 2019. There was an exploration of several traditional topics in sequence analysis, including genome assembly, sequence alignment, and data compression, and development of methods for new sequencing technologies, including linked reads and single-molecule long-read sequencing. Here we revisit these topics and discuss the current status and perspectives of sequencing technologies and analyses.

Identifiers

PMID31472161
PMCPMC6733309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.