ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2020
Factorial estimating assembly base errors using
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.
- Article
- Gapless genome assembly and epigenetic profiles reveal gene regulation of whole-genome triplication in lettuce.GigaScience · 2024Article
- Genome Size Changes by Duplication, Divergence, and Insertion in Caenorhabditis Worms.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- metaMIC: reference-free misassembly identification and correction of de novo metagenomic assemblies.Genome biology · 2022Article
- Chromosome-level genome assembly of a regenerable maize inbred line A188.Genome biology · 2021Article
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
Genome sequences provide genomic maps with a single-base resolution for exploring genetic contents. Sequencing technologies, particularly long reads, have revolutionized genome assemblies for producing highly continuous genome sequences. However, current long-read sequencing technologies generate inaccurate reads that contain many errors. Some errors are retained in assembled sequences, which are typically not completely corrected by using either long reads or more accurate short reads. The issue commonly exists, but few tools are dedicated for computing error rates or determining error locations. In this study, we developed a novel approach, referred to as
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.