ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2024
Improving the Accuracy of Bulk Fitness Assays by Correcting Barcode Processing Biases.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 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.
- Extremal events dictate population growth rate inference.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Putting BASIL in a BLT: A Bayesian filtering method for estimating the fitness effects of nascent adaptive mutations.PLoS computational 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measuring the fitnesses of genetic variants is a fundamental objective in evolutionary biology. A standard approach for measuring microbial fitnesses in bulk involves labeling a library of genetic variants with unique sequence barcodes, competing the labeled strains in batch culture, and using deep sequencing to track changes in the barcode abundances over time. However, idiosyncratic properties of barcodes can induce nonuniform amplification or uneven sequencing coverage that causes some barcodes to be over- or under-represented in samples. This systematic bias can result in erroneous read count trajectories and misestimates of fitness. Here, we develop a computational method, named REBAR (Removing the Effects of Bias through Analysis of Residuals), for inferring the effects of barcode processing bias by leveraging the structure of systematic deviations in the data. We illustrate this approach by applying it to two independent data sets, and demonstrate that this method estimates and corrects for bias more accurately than standard proxies, such as GC-based corrections. REBAR mitigates bias and improves fitness estimates in high-throughput assays without introducing additional complexity to the experimental protocols, with potential applications in a range of experimental evolution and mutation screening contexts.
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.