ArticleLife science alliance2023
A practical comparison of the next-generation sequencing platform and assemblers using yeast genome.
Article in Life science alliance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-throughput detection of microeukaryotic parasites in insects using Nanopore sequencing.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- EMS-induced genomic variation and QTL-seq analysis of safflower spininess through whole genome sequencing (WGS).BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Gut microbiota and tuberculosis.iMeta · 2025Review
- Variation of and associations with the depth and evenness of sequencing coverage in archived plastid genomes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Variation of and associations with the depth and evenness of sequencing coverage in archived plastid genomes.Research square · 2025Article
- Dietary exposure of the water fleaAnimal cells and systems · 2024Article
- Integrated genomics and phenotype microarray analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae industrial strains for rice wine fermentation and recombinant protein production.Microbial biotechnology · 2023Article
- Narrative Review: Update on the Molecular Diagnosis of Fragile X Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assembling fragmented whole-genomic information from the sequencing data is an inevitable process for further genome-wide research. However, it is intricate to select the appropriate assembly pipeline for unknown species because of the species-specific genomic properties. Therefore, our study focused on relatively more static proclivities of sequencing platforms and assembly algorithms than the fickle genome sequences. A total of 212 draft and polished de novo assemblies were constructed under the different sequencing platforms and assembly algorithms with the repetitive yeast genome. Our comprehensive data indicated that sequencing reads from Oxford Nanopore with R7.3 flow cells generated more continuous assemblies than those derived from the PacBio Sequel, although the homopolymer-based assembly errors and chimeric contigs exist. In addition, the comparison between two second-generation sequencing platforms showed that Illumina NovaSeq 6000 provides more accurate and continuous assembly in the second-generation-sequencing-first pipeline, but MGI DNBSEQ-T7 provides a cheap and accurate read in the polishing process. Furthermore, our insight into the relationship among the computational time, read length, and coverage depth provided clues to the optimal pipelines of yeast assembly.
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.