Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33396198›Full record

ReviewGenes2020

Probably Correct: Rescuing Repeats with Short and Long Reads.

Monika Cechova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Gapless near Telomer-to-Telomer Assembly ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. OligoY pipeline for full Y chromosome painting.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Satellite DNAs and human sex chromosome variation.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

1 author.

Monika CechovaGenetics and Reproductive Biotechnologies, Veterinary Research Institute, Central European Institute of Technology (CEITEC), 621 00 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7420-2663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ever since the introduction of high-throughput sequencing following the human genome project, assembling short reads into a reference of sufficient quality posed a significant problem as a large portion of the human genome-estimated 50-69%-is repetitive. As a result, a sizable proportion of sequencing reads is multi-mapping, i.e., without a unique placement in the genome. The two key parameters for whether or not a read is multi-mapping are the read length and genome complexity. Long reads are now able to span difficult, heterochromatic regions, including full centromeres, and characterize chromosomes from "telomere to telomere". Moreover, identical reads or repeat arrays can be differentiated based on their epigenetic marks, such as methylation patterns, aiding in the assembly process. This is despite the fact that long reads still contain a modest percentage of sequencing errors, disorienting the aligners and assemblers both in accuracy and speed. Here, I review the proposed and implemented solutions to the repeat resolution and the multi-mapping read problem, as well as the downstream consequences of reference choice, repeat masking, and proper representation of sex chromosomes. I also consider the forthcoming challenges and solutions with regards to long reads, where we expect the shift from the problem of repeat localization within a single individual to the problem of repeat positioning within pangenomes.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanMicrosatellite RepeatsCentromereChromosome MappingComputational BiologyDNA MethylationGenome SizeHumansSex ChromosomesTelomerelong readsmulti-mappingreferencerepeatssatellite

Identifiers

PMID33396198
PMCPMC7823596

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.