ReviewNature protocols2025
A detailed guide to assessing genome assembly based on long-read sequencing data using Inspector.
Review in Nature protocols, 2025. 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.
- theBIGbam: compression and interactive exploration of large-scale sequencing alignments with circular mapping support.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Long-read sequencing technologies yield extended DNA sequences capable of spanning intricate, repetitive genome regions, thereby facilitating the generation of more precise and comprehensive genome assemblies. However, assembly errors are inevitable owing to inherent genomic complexity and limitations of sequencing technology and assembly algorithms, making assembly evaluation crucial. The genome assembly evaluation tool Inspector presents several advantages over existing long-read de novo assembly evaluation tools, including (1) both reference-free and reference-guided assembly evaluation; (2) the ability to detect both small- and large-scale structural errors; (3) the option of assembly error correction, which can improve the quality value of the original assembly; and (4) the ability to perform haplotype-resolved assembly evaluation. Inspector can provide not only basic contig and alignment statistics, but also the precise locations and types of the different structural errors. These advantages provide a robust framework for long-read assembly evaluation. In this Protocol, we showcase four procedures to demonstrate the different applications of Inspector for long-read assembly evaluation. Inspector software and additional guides can be found at https://github.com/ChongLab/Inspector_protocol .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40140633What 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.