error and error mitigation in low-coverage genome assemblies.
Clicks: 4
ID: 171022
2011
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
0.9
/100
4 views
3 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #234 of 234 articles by views in ensaio pesquisa em educação em ciências
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 234 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The recent release of twenty-two new genome sequences has dramatically increased the data available for mammalian comparative genomics, but twenty of these new sequences are currently limited to ∼2× coverage. Here we examine the extent of sequencing error in these 2× assemblies, and its potential impact in downstream analyses. By comparing 2× assemblies with high-quality sequences from the ENCODE regions, we estimate the rate of sequencing error to be 1-4 errors per kilobase. While this error rate is fairly modest, sequencing error can still have surprising effects. For example, an apparent lineage-specific insertion in a coding region is more likely to reflect sequencing error than a true biological event, and the length distribution of coding indels is strongly distorted by error. We find that most errors are contributed by a small fraction of bases with low quality scores, in particular, by the ends of reads in regions of single-read coverage in the assembly. We explore several approaches for automatic sequencing error mitigation (SEM), making use of the localized nature of sequencing error, the fact that it is well predicted by quality scores, and information about errors that comes from comparisons across species. Our automatic methods for error mitigation cannot replace the need for additional sequencing, but they do allow substantial fractions of errors to be masked or eliminated at the cost of modest amounts of over-correction, and they can reduce the impact of error in downstream phylogenomic analyses. Our error-mitigated alignments are available for download.
| Reference Key |
hubisz2011ploserror
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Melissa J Hubisz;Michael F Lin;Manolis Kellis;Adam Siepel |
| Journal | ensaio pesquisa em educação em ciências |
| Year | 2011 |
| DOI |
10.1371/journal.pone.0017034
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.