Cited by 5,261Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesAlgorithms and Data CompressionFractal and DNA sequence analysis

CAP3: A DNA Sequence Assembly Program

Open access
Huang, Xiaoqiu, Madan, Anup·1999·Genome Research

Abstract

We describe the third generation of the CAP sequence assembly program. The CAP3 program includes a number of improvements and new features. The program has a capability to clip 5' and 3' low-quality regions of reads. It uses base quality values in computation of overlaps between reads, construction of multiple sequence alignments of reads, and generation of consensus sequences. The program also uses forward-reverse constraints to correct assembly errors and link contigs. Results of CAP3 on four BAC data sets are presented. The performance of CAP3 was compared with that of PHRAP on a number of BAC data sets. PHRAP often produces longer contigs than CAP3 whereas CAP3 often produces fewer errors in consensus sequences than PHRAP. It is easier to construct scaffolds with CAP3 than with PHRAP on low-pass data with forward-reverse constraints.

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 · 10.1101/gr.9.9.868

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chao, K.-M., W.R. Pearson, and W. Miller. 1992. Aligning two sequences within a specified diagonal band. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 8: 481-487.
  2. Pearson, W.R. and D. Lipman. 1988. Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 85: 2444-2448.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, X., & Madan, A.
Affiliations
Michigan Technological University (US)
Corresponding author
Huang, Xiaoqiu
Venue
Genome Research
Published
1999-09-01
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
868-877
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2166265186
Cited by
5,261
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 135 · 2021: 194 · 2020: 214 · 2019: 228 · 2018: 206 · 2017: 261 · 2016: 278 · 2015: 311 · 2014: 339 · 2013: 348 · 2012: 360
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01hg001502-07)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01 HG01502-03)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
Keywords
CAP3, DNA sequence assembly, BAC sequencing, consensus sequence, low-pass sequencing
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Chromosomes, Bacterial, Models, Genetic, Models, Theoretical, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual, Consensus Sequence, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Contig Mapping

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