Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36352541›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2022

Accurate gene consensus at low nanopore coverage.

Rocío Espada, Nikola Zarevski, Adèle Dramé-Maigné, Yannick Rondelez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Rocío EspadaGulliver Lab, ESPCI Paris, PSL University, CNRS, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3829-473X
Nikola ZarevskiGulliver Lab, ESPCI Paris, PSL University, CNRS, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5045-2425
Adèle Dramé-MaignéGulliver Lab, ESPCI Paris, PSL University, CNRS, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3586-0361
Yannick RondelezGulliver Lab, ESPCI Paris, PSL University, CNRS, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2565-476X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NanoporesConsensusHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNAconsensus sequencegene librarylow coveragenanopore sequencing

Identifiers

PMID36352541
PMCPMC9646519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.