Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37642827›Full record

ArticleJournal, genetic engineering & biotechnology2023

Technical comparison of MinIon and Illumina technologies for genotyping Chikungunya virus in clinical samples.

Leandro Menezes de Souza, Isabelle Dias de Oliveira, Flávia Cristina Silva Sales, Antonio Charlys da Costa, Karoline Rodrigues Campos, Adriano Abbud, Juliana Mariotti Guerra, Cinthya Dos Santos Cirqueira Borges, Carlos Pires Fernandes Júnior Takahashi, Leonardo José Tadeu de Araújo

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology, 2023. 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Leandro Menezes de SouzaCentro de Patologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9567-5227
Isabelle Dias de OliveiraCentro de Patologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Flávia Cristina Silva SalesDepartamento de Moléstias Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9048-0030
Antonio Charlys da CostaDepartamento de Moléstias Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5516-5177
Karoline Rodrigues CamposCentro de Respostas Rápidas, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-1937
Adriano AbbudCentro de Respostas Rápidas, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1685-0619
Juliana Mariotti GuerraCentro de Patologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0326-7187
Cinthya Dos Santos Cirqueira BorgesCentro de Patologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3719-5505
Carlos Pires Fernandes Júnior TakahashiState Health Secretary of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Leonardo José Tadeu de AraújoCentro de Patologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Sao Paulo, Brazil. leonardo.araujo@ial.sp.gov.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5427-4053
Instituto Adolfo Lutz · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRMinistério da Saúde · BR

Funding

FESIMA CAF 042/2021 (SES-OFI-2021/29090).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques have brought the opportunity for genomic monitoring of several microorganisms potentially relevant to public health. The establishment of different methods with different mechanisms provides a wide choice, taking into account several aspects. With that in mind, the present aim of the study was to compare basic genomic sequencing metrics that could potentially impact genotyping by nanopores from Oxford Nanopore Technologies and by synthesis from Illumina in clinical samples positive for Chikungunya (CHIKV). Among the metrics studied, running time, read production, and Q score were better represented in Illumina sequencing, while the MinIOn platform showed better response time and greater diversity of generated files. That said, it was possible to establish differences between the studied metrics in addition to verifying that the distinctions in the methods did not impact the identification of the CHIKV virus genotype.

Indexed as

Chikungunya virus genotypeMetric MinION and IlluminaNext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID37642827
PMCPMC10465416
OpenAlexW4386245932

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.