ArticleBMC genomics2024
High-fidelity (repeat) consensus sequences from short reads using combined read clustering and assembly.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hide and seek: de novo identification in sugar beet reveals impact of non-autonomous LTR retrotransposons.Mobile DNA · 2026Article
- Evolutionary trends of As51 satellite DNA and its colocalization with 45S ribosomal DNA: a conserved feature in Characiformes fishes.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Methylcytosine oxidation derivatives are preferentially associated with repetitive chromatin and mark active rDNA inFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- The role of mobile DNA elements in the dynamics of plant genome plasticity.Journal of experimental botany · 2025Review
- BeetRepeats: reference sequences for genome and polymorphism annotation in sugar beet and wild relatives.BMC research notes · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the many cheap and fast ways to generate genomic data, good and exact genome assembly is still a problem, with especially the repeats being vastly underrepresented and often misassembled. As short reads in low coverage are already sufficient to represent the repeat landscape of any given genome, many read cluster algorithms were brought forward that provide repeat identification and classification. But how can trustworthy, reliable and representative repeat consensuses be derived from unassembled genomes?
resultsHere, we combine methods from repeat identification and genome assembly to derive these robust consensuses. We test several use cases, such as (1) consensus building from clustered short reads of non-model genomes, (2) from genome-wide amplification setups, and (3) specific repeat-centred questions, such as the linked vs. unlinked arrangement of ribosomal genes. In all our use cases, the derived consensuses are robust and representative. To evaluate overall performance, we compare our high-fidelity repeat consensuses to RepeatExplorer2-derived contigs and check, if they represent real transposable elements as found in long reads. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to generate useful, reliable and trustworthy consensuses from short reads by a combination from read cluster and genome assembly methods in an automatable way.
conclusionWe anticipate that our workflow opens the way towards more efficient and less manual repeat characterization and annotation, benefitting all genome studies, but especially those of non-model organisms.
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.