ArticlePLoS pathogens2019
Is reliance on an inaccurate genome sequence sabotaging your experiments?
Article in PLoS pathogens, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- New T2T assembly of Cryptosporidium parvum IOWA II annotated with Legacy-Compatible Gene identifiers.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Transformers in RNA structure prediction: A review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- Klumpy: A tool to evaluate the integrity of long-read genome assemblies and illusive sequence motifs.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Multicopy subtelomeric genes underlie animal infectivity of divergent Cryptosporidium hominis subtypes.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A practical guide and Galaxy workflow to avoid inter-plasmidic repeat collapse and false gene loss in Unicycler's hybrid assemblies.Microbial genomics · 2024Article
- From contigs towards chromosomes: automatic improvement of long read assemblies (ILRA).Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Noise reduction strategies in metagenomic chromosome confirmation capture to link antibiotic resistance genes to microbial hosts.Microbial genomics · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Nematode chromosomes.Genetics · 2022Review
- Long-read assembly and comparative evidence-based reanalysis ofGenome research · 2022Article
- Overview and New Insights Into the Diversity, Evolution, Role, and Regulation of Kisspeptins and Their Receptors in Teleost Fish.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Comparative Genomics across Three Ensifer Species Using a New Complete Genome Sequence of the Medicago SymbiontMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Cultivation and Genome Sequencing of Bacteria Isolated From the Coffee Berry Borer (Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- High-quality reannotation of the king scallop genome reveals no 'gene-rich' feature and evolution of toxin resistance.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- Continuous Microevolution Accelerates Disease Progression during Sequential Episodes of Infection.Cell reports · 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
Advances in genomics have made whole genome studies increasingly feasible across the life sciences. However, new technologies and algorithmic advances do not guarantee flawless genomic sequences or annotation. Bias, errors, and artifacts can enter at any stage of the process from library preparation to annotation. When planning an experiment that utilizes a genome sequence as the basis for the design, there are a few basic checks that, if performed, may better inform the experimental design and ideally help avoid a failed experiment or inconclusive result.
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.