ArticleBMC genomics2026
Systematic detection of Oxford Nanopore adapter and barcode contamination in GenBank.
Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) workflows attach synthetic adapters and barcode oligonucleotides to DNA fragments for priming and multiplexing. Although these sequences are normally removed during basecalling or post-processing, incomplete trimming can embed non-biological fragments into genome assemblies deposited in public repositories.
resultsA systematic sequence-similarity screening of the GenBank nucleotide search database identified 5,782 unique accessions containing 13,734 Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) adapter and barcode fragments embedded in bacterial, viral, and eukaryotic assemblies. Most contaminating sequences correspond to rapid-ligation and ligation-based adapters, reflecting incomplete trimming in ONT workflows. Multiple ONT synthetic sequences were often detected within a single accession, consistent with protocols employing several adapters and barcodes. Compared with GC-matched randomized control sequences, the original ONT sequence catalogue yielded significantly more GenBank matches, supporting that the observed signal exceeds chance similarity.
conclusionsThis ONT-specific contamination recurs across GenBank records and exhibits structured patterns across taxonomic groups and project types. Implementing ONT-aware screening during public database submissions and curation is critical to prevent the ongoing propagation of synthetic sequences and safeguard genomic data integrity.
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.