ArticleBMC genomics2024
Optimizing next-generation sequencing efficiency in clinical settings: analysis of read length impact on cost and performance.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measles and rubella: From global health challenges to advancements in molecular diagnostics in the elimination era.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe expansion of sequencing technologies as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled pathogen (meta)genomics to be deployed as a routine component of surveillance in many countries. Scaling genomic surveillance, however, comes with associated costs in both equipment and sequencing reagents, which should be optimized. Here, we evaluate the cost efficiency and performance of different read lengths in identifying pathogens in metagenomic samples. We carefully evaluated performance metrics, costs, and time requirements relative to choices of 75, 150 and 300 base pairs (bp) read lengths in pathogen identification.
resultsOur findings revealed that moving from 75 bp to 150 bp read length approximately doubles both the cost and sequencing time. Opting for 300 bp reads leads to approximately two- and three-fold increases, respectively, in cost and sequencing time compared to 75 bp reads. For viral pathogen detection, the sensitivity median ranged from 99% with 75 bp reads to 100% with 150-300 bp reads. However, bacterial pathogens detection was less effective with shorter reads: 87% with 75 bp, 95% with 150 bp, and 97% with 300 bp reads. These findings were consistent across different levels of taxa abundance. The precision of pathogen detection using shorter reads was comparable to that of longer reads across most viral and bacterial taxa.
conclusionsDuring disease outbreak situations, when swift responses are required for pathogen identification, we suggest prioritizing 75 bp read lengths, especially if detection of viral pathogens is aimed. This practical approach allows better use of resources, enabling the sequencing of more samples using streamlined workflows, while maintaining a reliable response capability.
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.