Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33419473›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2021

Ratatosk: hybrid error correction of long reads enables accurate variant calling and assembly.

Guillaume Holley, Doruk Beyter, Helga Ingimundardottir, Peter L Møller, Snædis Kristmundsdottir, Hannes P Eggertsson, Bjarni V Halldorsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Functional dissection ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. First draft genome of the decaploid species,GigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Populations of the Australian Saltmarsh MosquitoEvolutionary applications · 2025
    Article
  18. Benchmarking of bioinformatics tools for the hybridComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  19. Nanopore Data-Driven T2T Genome Assemblies ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Guillaume HolleydeCODE genetics/Amgen Inc., Reykjavík, Iceland. guillaume.holley@decode.is.
Doruk BeyterdeCODE genetics/Amgen Inc., Reykjavík, Iceland.
Helga IngimundardottirdeCODE genetics/Amgen Inc., Reykjavík, Iceland.
Peter L MøllerDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Snædis KristmundsdottirdeCODE genetics/Amgen Inc., Reykjavík, Iceland.
Hannes P EggertssondeCODE genetics/Amgen Inc., Reykjavík, Iceland.
Bjarni V HalldorssondeCODE genetics/Amgen Inc., Reykjavík, Iceland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major challenge to long read sequencing data is their high error rate of up to 15%. We present Ratatosk, a method to correct long reads with short read data. We demonstrate on 5 human genome trios that Ratatosk reduces the error rate of long reads 6-fold on average with a median error rate as low as 0.22 %. SNP calls in Ratatosk corrected reads are nearly 99 % accurate and indel calls accuracy is increased by up to 37 %. An assembly of Ratatosk corrected reads from an Ashkenazi individual yields a contig N50 of 45 Mbp and less misassemblies than a PacBio HiFi reads assembly.

Indexed as

ChimeraGenome, HumanFemaleGenomicsHumansMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID33419473
PMCPMC7792008

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.