ArticleGenes2024
Comprehensive Evaluation of Genome Gap-Filling Tools Utilizing Long Reads.
Article in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic generation of model sequences for complex regions in assembly graphs with TTT.Cell genomics · 2026Article
- Automatic Generation of Model Sequences for Complex Regions in Assembly Graphs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The availability of the complete genome of an organism plays a crucial role in the comprehensive analysis of the entire biological entity. Despite the rapid advancements in sequencing technologies, the inherent complexities of genomes inevitably lead to gaps during genome assembly. To obviate this, numerous genome gap-filling tools utilizing long reads have emerged. However, a comprehensive evaluation of these tools is currently lacking. In this study, we evaluated seven software under various ploidy levels and different data generation methods, and assessing them using QUAST and two additional criteria such as accuracy and completeness. Our findings revealed that the performance of the different tools varied across diverse ploidy levels. Based on accuracy and completeness, FGAP emerged as the top-performing tool, excelling in both haploid and tetraploid scenarios. This evaluation of commonly used genome gap-filling tools aims to provide users with valuable insights for tool selection, assisting them in choosing the most suitable genome gap-filling tool for their specific needs.
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.