Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42306034›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics advances2026

Impact of sequencing read quality on whole-genome sequencing outcomes for foodborne pathogens using a BacWORK standardized analysis workflow.

Arnaud Felten, Deborah Merda, Meryl Vila Nova, Fabrice Touzain, Virginie Chesnais

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Arnaud FeltenANSES, Ploufragan-Plouzané-Niort Laboratory, VIRPIG Unit, Ploufragan F-22440, France.
Deborah MerdaUniversity Paris Est, ANSES, Laboratory for Food Safety, SPAAD Unit, Maisons-Alfort F-94701, France.
Meryl Vila NovaUniversity Paris Est, ANSES, Laboratory for Food Safety, SPAAD Unit, Maisons-Alfort F-94701, France.
Fabrice TouzainANSES, Ploufragan-Plouzané-Niort Laboratory, VIRPIG Unit, Ploufragan F-22440, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1103-2425
Virginie ChesnaisUniversity Paris Est, ANSES, Laboratory for Food Safety, SPAAD Unit, Maisons-Alfort F-94701, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6730-9761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is now routinely used for surveillance and outbreak investigations of foodborne pathogens. However, the reliability of downstream analyses strongly depends on sequencing read quality, including depth of coverage and the presence of contamination. Systematic evaluation of how these factors affect WGS outputs remains essential to ensure robust, reproducible, and interpretable results. Results: We evaluated the impact of sequencing depth and read quality on WGS-derived analyses of foodborne pathogens using an automated, reproducible workflow. Artificial Illumina paired-end datasets were generated for 11 bacterial pathogens with varying depths of coverage (25×-500×) and controlled quality alterations, including intra- and inter-species contamination. Low sequencing depth resulted in fragmented and incomplete genome assemblies, leading to reduced performance in downstream typing analyses. While contamination impacted assembly fragmentation, it did not compromise completeness. However, it caused significant errors in both serotyping and cgMLST analyses. Application to real outbreak datasets showed that the introduction of as little as 5%-10% contamination altered a Availability and implementation: The BacWORK workflow is available at https://github.com/FBi-ANSES/BacWORK.

Identifiers

PMID42306034
PMCPMC13265382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.