Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33575566›Full record

ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2020

ELECTOR: evaluator for long reads correction methods.

Camille Marchet, Pierre Morisse, Lolita Lecompte, Arnaud Lefebvre, Thierry Lecroq, Pierre Peterlongo, Antoine Limasset

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Camille MarchetUniv Rennes, CNRS, Inria, IRISA-UMR 6074, F-35000 Rennes, France.
Pierre MorisseNormandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, LITIS, 76000 Rouen, France.
Lolita LecompteUniv Rennes, CNRS, Inria, IRISA-UMR 6074, F-35000 Rennes, France.
Arnaud LefebvreNormandie Univ, UNIROUEN, LITIS, 76000 Rouen, France.
Thierry LecroqNormandie Univ, UNIROUEN, LITIS, 76000 Rouen, France.
Pierre PeterlongoUniv Rennes, CNRS, Inria, IRISA-UMR 6074, F-35000 Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0776-6407
Antoine LimassetUniv. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9189 - CRIStAL, 59655 Villeneuve-d'Ascq, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The error rates of third-generation sequencing data have been capped >5%, mainly containing insertions and deletions. Thereby, an increasing number of diverse long reads correction methods have been proposed. The quality of the correction has huge impacts on downstream processes. Therefore, developing methods allowing to evaluate error correction tools with precise and reliable statistics is a crucial need. These evaluation methods rely on costly alignments to evaluate the quality of the corrected reads. Thus, key features must allow the fast comparison of different tools, and scale to the increasing length of the long reads. Our tool, ELECTOR, evaluates long reads correction and is directly compatible with a wide range of error correction tools. As it is based on multiple sequence alignment, we introduce a new algorithmic strategy for alignment segmentation, which enables us to scale to large instances using reasonable resources. To our knowledge, we provide the unique method that allows producing reproducible correction benchmarks on the latest ultra-long reads (>100 k bases). It is also faster than the current state-of-the-art on other datasets and provides a wider set of metrics to assess the read quality improvement after correction. ELECTOR is available on GitHub (https://github.com/kamimrcht/ELECTOR) and Bioconda.

Identifiers

PMID33575566
PMCPMC7671326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.