ArticleMicroorganisms2024
Three Rounds of Read Correction Significantly Improve Eukaryotic Protein Detection in ONT Reads.
Article in Microorganisms, 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.
- Harnessing the Power of Next-Generation Sequencing in Wastewater-Based Epidemiology and Global Disease Surveillance.Food and environmental virology · 2024Review
- Whole Genome Sequencing: Applications in Clinical Bacteriology.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024Review
- Adaptable and comprehensive approaches for long-read nanopore sequencing of polyadenylated and non-polyadenylated RNAs.Frontiers in genetics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEukaryotes' whole-genome sequencing is crucial for species identification, gene detection, and protein annotation. Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT) is an affordable and rapid platform for sequencing eukaryotes; however, the relatively higher error rates require computational and bioinformatic efforts to produce more accurate genome assemblies. Here, we evaluated the effect of read correction tools on eukaryote genome completeness, gene detection and protein annotation.
methodsReads generated by ONT of four eukaryotes,
resultsGenome completeness was dependent on the assembly method rather than on the read correction tool; however, medaka performed better than flye and racon. Racon significantly performed better than flye and medaka in gene detection, while both racon and medaka significantly performed better than flye in protein-annotation.
conclusionWe show that three rounds of read correction significantly affect gene detection and protein annotation, which are dependent on assembly quality in preference to assembly completeness.
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.