Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,090

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Significantly improving the quality of genome assemblies through curation

Open access
Howe, Kerstin, Chow, William, Collins, Joanna, Pelan, Sarah, Pointon, Damon-Lee, Sims, Ying, Torrance, James, Tracey, Alan, Wood, Jonathan·2021·GigaScience

Abstract

Genome sequence assemblies provide the basis for our understanding of biology. Generating error-free assemblies is therefore the ultimate, but sadly still unachieved goal of a multitude of research projects. Despite the ever-advancing improvements in data generation, assembly algorithms and pipelines, no automated approach has so far reliably generated near error-free genome assemblies for eukaryotes. Whilst working towards improved datasets and fully automated pipelines, assembly evaluation and curation is actively used to bridge this shortcoming and significantly reduce the number of assembly errors. In addition to this increase in product value, the insights gained from assembly curation are fed back into the automated assembly strategy and contribute to notable improvements in genome assembly quality. We describe our tried and tested approach for assembly curation using gEVAL, the genome evaluation browser. We outline the procedures applied to genome curation using gEVAL and also our recommendations for assembly curation in a gEVAL-independent context to facilitate the uptake of genome curation in the wider community.

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/gigascience/giaa153

Cites

8 of 8 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 2,090

Metadata

Authors
Howe, K., Chow, W., Collins, J., Pelan, S., Pointon, D.-L., Sims, Y., Torrance, J., Tracey, A., & Wood, J.
Venue
GigaScience
Published
2021-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
2047-217X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3119817612
Cited by
2,090
References
8
FWCI
72.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.