ArticlePloS one2021
Choice of library preparation affects sequence quality, genome assembly, and precise in silico prediction of virulence genes in shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single cell transcriptional analysis of human adenoids identifies molecular features of airway microfold cells.Mucosal immunology · 2025Article
- Article
- Single Laboratory Evaluation of the Q20+ Nanopore Sequencing Kit for Bacterial Outbreak Investigations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Results of the 2020 Genomic Proficiency Test for the network of European Union Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance assessing whole-genome-sequencing capacities.Microbial genomics · 2023Article
- Precision metagenomics sequencing for food safety: hybrid assembly of Shiga toxin-producingFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) provides essential public health information and is used worldwide for pathogen surveillance, epidemiology, and source tracking. Foodborne pathogens are often sequenced using rapid library preparation chemistries based on transposon technology; however, this method may miss random segments of genomes that can be important for accurate downstream analyses. As new technologies become available, it may become possible to achieve better overall coverage. Here we compare the sequence quality obtained using libraries prepared from the Nextera XT and Nextera DNA Prep (Illumina, San Diego, CA) chemistries for 31 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O121:H19 strains, which had been isolated from flour during a 2016 outbreak. The Nextera DNA Prep gave superior performance metrics including sequence quality, assembly quality, uniformity of genome coverage, and virulence gene identification, among other metrics. Comprehensive detection of virulence genes is essential for making educated assessments of STECs virulence potential. The phylogenetic SNP analysis did not show any differences in the variants detected by either library preparation method which allows isolates prepared from either library method to be analysed together. Our comprehensive comparison of these chemistries should assist researchers wishing to improve their sequencing workflow for STECs and other genomic risk assessments.
Indexed 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.