Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31538236›Full record

ReviewHuman genetics2019

Long-read sequencing in deciphering human genetics to a greater depth.

Mohit K Midha, Mengchu Wu, Kuo-Ping Chiu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Human genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Frontiers in genetics · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Mohit K MidhaGenomics Research Center, Academia Sinica, 128 Academia Road, Sec. 2, Nankang District, Taipei, 115, Taiwan.
Mengchu WuHealth GeneTech, 22F No. 99, Xin Pu 6th St., Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Kuo-Ping ChiuGenomics Research Center, Academia Sinica, 128 Academia Road, Sec. 2, Nankang District, Taipei, 115, Taiwan. chiukp@gate.sinica.edu.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9144-0674

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Through four decades' development, DNA sequencing has inched into the era of single-molecule sequencing (SMS), or the third-generation sequencing (TGS), as represented by two distinct technical approaches developed independently by Pacific Bioscience (PacBio) and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT). Historically, each generation of sequencing technologies was marked by innovative technological achievements and novel applications. Long reads (LRs) are considered as the most advantageous feature of SMS shared by both PacBio and ONT to distinguish SMS from next-generation sequencing (NGS, or the second-generation sequencing) and Sanger sequencing (the first-generation sequencing). Long reads overcome the limitations of NGS and drastically improves the quality of genome assembly. Besides, ONT also contributes several unique features including ultra-long reads (ULRs) with read length above 300 kb and some close to 1 million bp, direct RNA sequencing and superior portability as made possible by pocket-sized MinION sequencer. Here, we review the history of DNA sequencing technologies and associated applications, with a special focus on the advantages as well as the limitations of ULR sequencing in genome assembly.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanHuman GeneticsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.