ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2024
Giraffe: A tool for comprehensive processing and visualization of multiple long-read sequencing data.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanopore direct RNA sequencing reveals transmissible gastroenteritis virus epitranscriptomic and transcriptomic landscapes modulated by gene 7.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Enhanced detection of RNA modifications in Escherichia coli utilizing direct RNA sequencing.Cell reports methods · 2025Article
- Comprehensive comparison of the third-generation sequencing tools for bacterial 6mA profiling.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Nanopore strand-specific mismatch enables de novo detection of bacterial DNA modifications.Genome research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Third-generation sequencing techniques have become increasingly popular due to their capacity to produce long, high-quality reads. Effective comparative analysis across various samples and sequencing platforms is essential for understanding biological mechanisms and establishing benchmark baselines. However, existing tools for long-read sequencing predominantly focus on quality control (QC) and processing for individual samples, complicating the comparison of multiple datasets. The lack of comprehensive tools for data comparison and visualization presents challenges for researchers with limited bioinformatics experience. To address this gap, we present Giraffe (https://github.com/lrslab/Giraffe_View), a Python3-based command-line tool designed for comparative analysis and visualization across diverse samples and platforms. Giraffe facilitates the assessment of read quality, sequencing bias, and genomic regional methylation proportions for both DNA and direct RNA sequencing reads. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated in various scenarios, including comparisons of sequencing methods (whole genome amplification vs. shotgun), sequencing platforms (Oxford Nanopore Technology, ONT vs. Pacific Biosciences, PacBio), tissues (kidney marrow with and without blood), and biological replicates (kidney marrows).
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.