Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 510

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

proovread : large-scale high-accuracy PacBio correction through iterative short read consensus

Open access
Hackl, Thomas, Hedrich, Rainer, Schultz, Jörg, Förster, Frank·2014·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation : Today, the base code of DNA is mostly determined through sequencing by synthesis as provided by the Illumina sequencers. Although highly accurate, resulting reads are short, making their analyses challenging. Recently, a new technology, single molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing, was developed that could address these challenges, as it generates reads of several thousand bases. But, their broad application has been hampered by a high error rate. Therefore, hybrid approaches that use high-quality short reads to correct erroneous SMRT long reads have been developed. Still, current implementations have great demands on hardware, work only in well-defined computing infrastructures and reject a substantial amount of reads. This limits their usability considerably, especially in the case of large sequencing projects. Results : Here we present proovread , a hybrid correction pipeline for SMRT reads, which can be flexibly adapted on existing hardware and infrastructure from a laptop to a high-performance computing cluster. On genomic and transcriptomic test cases covering Escherichia coli , Arabidopsis thaliana and human, proovread achieved accuracies up to 99.9% and outperformed the existing hybrid correction programs. Furthermore, proovread -corrected sequences were longer and the throughput was higher. Thus, proovread combines the most accurate correction results with an excellent adaptability to the available hardware. It will therefore increase the applicability and value of SMRT sequencing. Availability and implementation: proovread is available at the following URL: http://proovread.bioapps.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de Contact : frank.foerster@biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu392

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 510

Metadata

Authors
Hackl, T., Hedrich, R., Schultz, J., & Förster, F.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2014-07-10
Volume
30
Issue
21
Pages
3004-3011
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2139306346
Cited by
510
References
4
FWCI
10.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.