ArticlePloS one2023
SAKE: Strobemer-assisted k-mer extraction.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
K-mer-based analysis plays an important role in many bioinformatics applications, such as de novo assembly, sequencing error correction, and genotyping. To take full advantage of such methods, the k-mer content of a read set must be captured as accurately as possible. Often the use of long k-mers is preferred because they can be uniquely associated with a specific genomic region. Unfortunately, it is not possible to reliably extract long k-mers in high error rate reads with standard exact k-mer counting methods. We propose SAKE, a method to extract long k-mers from high error rate reads by utilizing strobemers and consensus k-mer generation through partial order alignment. Our experiments show that on simulated data with up to 6% error rate, SAKE can extract 97-mers with over 90% recall. Conversely, the recall of DSK, an exact k-mer counter, drops to less than 20%. Furthermore, the precision of SAKE remains similar to DSK. On real bacterial data, SAKE retrieves 97-mers with a recall of over 90% and slightly lower precision than DSK, while the recall of DSK already drops to 50%. We show that SAKE can extract more k-mers from uncorrected high error rate reads compared to exact k-mer counting. However, exact k-mer counters run on corrected reads can extract slightly more k-mers than SAKE run on uncorrected reads.
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.