ArticleBMC bioinformatics2025
MysteryMaster: scraping the bottom of the barrel of barcoded Oxford nanopore reads.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2025. 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.
- Development and optimization of host DNA depletion in blood cultures using a saponin and salt-activated nuclease-based method.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Metagenomic sequencing enables accurate pathogen and antimicrobial susceptibility profiling in complicated UTIs in approximately four hours.Nature communications · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe high error rate associated with Oxford Nanopore sequencing technology adversely affects demultiplexing. To improve demultiplexing and reduce unclassified reads from nanopore sequencing data, we developed MysteryMaster, a demultiplexer that utilizes the optimal sequence aligner, Cola.
resultsWhen compared to Oxford Nanopore´s Dorado and Guppy demultiplexing tools across three datasets of 37 diverse samples with established ground truth, we found that MysteryMaster accurately identifies a similar or greater percentage of reads among the different basecalling models: Fast, HAC, and SUP. MysteryMaster performs slightly better than the other tools on data that was basecalled using the Fast basecalled model, while its performance in HAC and SUP data is similar to Dorado's. MysteryMaster has a false positive rate of just 0.41% with default settings.
conclusionsWhile MysteryMaster can function as a standalone demultiplexer tool, the sequential application of Dorado and MysteryMaster produced the best overall performance.
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.