ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2023
Benchmarking software tools for trimming adapters and merging next-generation sequencing data for ancient DNA.
Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- BeeGees: A High-Throughput Protein-Coding DNA Barcode Recovery Pipeline Tailored for Genome Skims of Museum Specimens.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Recent Microbial Evolutionary Insights From Metagenomics.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Review
- How low can you go? Establishing detection limits for rare eukaryotes in Southern Ocean sedimentary ancient DNA.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- CarpeDeam: a de novo metagenome assembler for heavily damaged ancient datasets.Genome biology · 2025Article
- AdDeam: a fast and scalable tool for estimating and clustering reference-level damage profiles.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- soibean: High-Resolution Taxonomic Identification of Ancient Environmental DNA Using Mitochondrial Pangenome Graphs.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ancient DNA is highly degraded, resulting in very short sequences. Reads generated with modern high-throughput sequencing machines are generally longer than ancient DNA molecules, therefore the reads often contain some portion of the sequencing adaptors. It is crucial to remove those adaptors, as they can interfere with downstream analysis. Furthermore, overlapping portions when DNA has been read forward and backward (paired-end) can be merged to correct sequencing errors and improve read quality. Several tools have been developed for adapter trimming and read merging, however, no one has attempted to evaluate their accuracy and evaluate their potential impact on downstream analyses. Through the simulation of sequencing data, seven commonly used tools were analyzed in their ability to reconstruct ancient DNA sequences through read merging. The analyzed tools exhibit notable differences in their abilities to correct sequence errors and identify the correct read overlap, but the most substantial difference is observed in their ability to calculate quality scores for merged bases. Selecting the most appropriate tool for a given project depends on several factors, although some tools such as fastp have some shortcomings, whereas others like leeHom outperform the other tools in most aspects. While the choice of tool did not result in a measurable difference when analyzing population genetics using principal component analysis, it is important to note that downstream analyses that are sensitive to wrongly merged reads or that rely on quality scores can be significantly impacted by the choice of tool.
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.