Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31504158›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020

miComplete: weighted quality evaluation of assembled microbial genomes.

Eric Hugoson, Wai Tin Lam, Lionel Guy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A human-associatediScience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Noncanonical genetic markers resolve the pre-GOE emergence of aerobic bacteria in Earth's history.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evolutionary Convergence of Nutritional Symbionts in Ticks.Environmental microbiology reports · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Eric HugosonDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Science for Life Laboratories, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 23, Sweden.
Wai Tin LamDepartment of Microbial Population Biology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Plön D-24306, Germany.
Lionel GuyDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Science for Life Laboratories, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 23, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryMetagenomics and single-cell genomics have revolutionized the study of microorganisms, increasing our knowledge of microbial genomic diversity by orders of magnitude. A major issue pertaining to metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) and single-cell amplified genomes (SAGs) is to estimate their completeness and redundancy. Most approaches rely on counting conserved gene markers. In miComplete, we introduce a weighting strategy, where we normalize the presence/absence of markers by their median distance to the next marker in a set of complete reference genomes. This approach alleviates biases introduced by the presence/absence of shorter DNA pieces containing many markers, e.g. ribosomal protein operons. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: miComplete is written in Python 3 and released under GPLv3. Source code and documentation are available at https://bitbucket.org/evolegiolab/micomplete. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Genome, MicrobialMetagenomeGenomicsMetagenomicsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID31504158
PMCPMC9883684

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.