ReviewGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2024
Chasing Sequencing Perfection: Marching Toward Higher Accuracy and Lower Costs.
Review in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- VariantMedium: sensitive and generalizable somatic point mutation calling with 3D DenseNets trained and evaluated on experimental data.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Jumping in the human brain: A review on somatic transposition.Fundamental research · 2026Review
- Cell-free DNA in sepsis: from molecular insights to clinical management.Military Medical Research · 2025Review
- The human mycobiome: a critical yet understudied component of health and disease.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2025Review
- Why Are Long-Read Sequencing Methods Revolutionizing Microbiome Analysis?Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Advancing genome-based precision medicine: a review on machine learning applications for rare genetic disorders.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine modifications in circulating cell-free DNA: frontiers of cancer detection, monitoring, and prognostic evaluation.Biomarker research · 2025Review
- Unlocking the Potential of Metagenomics with the PacBio High-Fidelity Sequencing Technology.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Low-input PacBio sequencing generates high-quality individual fly genomes and characterizes mutational processes.Nature communications · 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
Next-generation sequencing (NGS), represented by Illumina platforms, has been an essential cornerstone of basic and applied research. However, the sequencing error rate of 1 per 1000 bp (10-3) represents a serious hurdle for research areas focusing on rare mutations, such as somatic mosaicism or microbe heterogeneity. By examining the high-fidelity sequencing methods developed in the past decade, we summarized three major factors underlying errors and the corresponding 12 strategies mitigating these errors. We then proposed a novel framework to classify 11 preexisting representative methods according to the corresponding combinatory strategies and identified three trends that emerged during methodological developments. We further extended this analysis to eight long-read sequencing methods, emphasizing error reduction strategies. Finally, we suggest two promising future directions that could achieve comparable or even higher accuracy with lower costs in both NGS and long-read sequencing.
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.