ArticleGigaScience2026
Dynamont: A comprehensive cross-species comparison of ONT segmentation tools.
Article in GigaScience, 2026. 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.
- Rawsamble: overlapping raw nanopore signals using a hash-based seeding mechanism.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
backgroundOxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing enables direct, long-read sequencing of DNA and RNA, preserving nucleotide modifications. During basecalling, deep neural networks translate raw nanopore signals into nucleotide sequences, internally segmenting the signal to align it with the corresponding bases. This is a challenging task due to uneven motor protein rotation, signal variability, low-quality reads, and the presence of nucleotide modifications. However, the signal to nucleotide assignment is critical for novel downstream signal analysis. Existing tools, such as Tombo Resquiggle, f5c Eventalign, f5c Resquiggle, and Uncalled4, operate after basecalling and rely on event-based segmentation and mapping approaches that often fail to align low-quality or modified reads and lack confidence estimates for segmentation accuracy.
resultsHere, we present a large-scale comparative study in which 5 segmentation tools, including our novel tool Dynamont, are applied to 16 ONT-sequenced datasets spanning different kingdoms of life. Overall, we segmented 160,000 reads and evaluated the tools' performance on a combination of 12 signal and downstream assembly metrics. Our study is accompanied by a comprehensive and extensible supplement that summarizes all datasets, execution instructions, and evaluation results. We score the segmentation results using an aggregated metric score, created from all our analyzed metrics.
conclusionsNo tool delivered the best results for all datasets. We recommend a careful choice and normalization of evaluation metrics to select the best segmentation tool as a critical step in the process of ONT signal segmentation. Across nearly all RNA datasets, Dynamont outperforms other segmentation tools in terms of aggregated metric scores. For DNA datasets, however, the performance is more variable, with mixed results observed across tools.
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.