ArticleGigaScience2022
Accurate gene consensus at low nanopore coverage.
Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ConSeqUMI, an error-free nanopore sequencing pipeline to identify and extract individual nucleic acid molecules from heterogeneous samples.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Accurate gene consensus at low nanopore coverage.GigaScience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNanopore technologies allow high-throughput sequencing of long strands of DNA at the cost of a relatively large error rate. This limits its use in the reading of amplicon libraries in which there are only a few mutations per variant and therefore they are easily confused with the sequencing noise. Consensus calling strategies reduce the error but sacrifice part of the throughput on reading typically 30 to 100 times each member of the library.
findingsIn this work, we introduce SINGLe (SNPs In Nanopore reads of Gene Libraries), an error correction method to reduce the noise in nanopore reads of amplicons containing point variations. SINGLe exploits that in an amplicon library, all reads are very similar to a wild-type sequence from which it is possible to experimentally characterize the position-specific systematic sequencing error pattern. Then, it uses this information to reweight the confidence given to nucleotides that do not match the wild-type in individual variant reads and incorporates it on the consensus calculation.
conclusionsWe tested SINGLe in a mutagenic library of the KlenTaq polymerase gene, where the true mutation rate was below the sequencing noise. We observed that contrary to other methods, SINGLe compensates for the systematic errors made by the basecallers. Consequently, SINGLe converges to the true sequence using as little as 5 reads per variant, fewer than the other available methods.
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.