ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2020
ELECTOR: evaluator for long reads correction methods.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated evaluation of multiple sequence alignment methods to handle third generation sequencing errors.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Scalable long read self-correction and assembly polishing with multiple sequence alignment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Ratatosk: hybrid error correction of long reads enables accurate variant calling and assembly.Genome biology · 2021Article
- Sequencing DNA with nanopores: Troubles and biases.PloS one · 2021Article
- Trans-NanoSim characterizes and simulates nanopore RNA-sequencing data.GigaScience · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.