ArticleScientific reports2024
Illumina reads correction: evaluation and improvements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resequencing and De Novo Assembly ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Characterization of antibiotic resistance genes in soils from agroecosystems of the Brazilian Amazon.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- A survey of k-mer methods and applications in bioinformatics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
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
Abstract
The paper focuses on the correction of Illumina WGS sequencing reads. We provide an extensive evaluation of the existing correctors. To this end, we measure an impact of the correction on variant calling (VC) as well as de novo assembly. It shows, that in selected cases read correction improves the VC results quality. We also examine the algorithms behaviour in a processing of Illumina NovaSeq reads, with different reads quality characteristics than in older sequencers. We show that most of the algorithms are ready to cope with such reads. Finally, we introduce a new version of RECKONER, our read corrector, by optimizing it and equipping with a new correction strategy. Currently, RECKONER allows to correct high-coverage human reads in less than 2.5 h, is able to cope with two types of reads errors: indels and substitutions, and utilizes a new, based on a two lengths of oligomers, correction verification technique.
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.