↓ Skip to main content

A computational method for estimating the PCR duplication rate in DNA and RNA-seq experiments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A computational method for estimating the PCR duplication rate in DNA and RNA-seq experiments
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1471-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vikas Bansal

Abstract

PCR amplification is an important step in the preparation of DNA sequencing libraries prior to high-throughput sequencing. PCR amplification introduces redundant reads in the sequence data and estimating the PCR duplication rate is important to assess the frequency of such reads. Existing computational methods do not distinguish PCR duplicates from "natural" read duplicates that represent independent DNA fragments and therefore, over-estimate the PCR duplication rate for DNA-seq and RNA-seq experiments. In this paper, we present a computational method to estimate the average PCR duplication rate of high-throughput sequence datasets that accounts for natural read duplicates by leveraging heterozygous variants in an individual genome. Analysis of simulated data and exome sequence data from the 1000 Genomes project demonstrated that our method can accurately estimate the PCR duplication rate on paired-end as well as single-end read datasets which contain a high proportion of natural read duplicates. Further, analysis of exome datasets prepared using the Nextera library preparation method indicated that 45-50% of read duplicates correspond to natural read duplicates likely due to fragmentation bias. Finally, analysis of RNA-seq datasets from individuals in the 1000 Genomes project demonstrated that 70-95% of read duplicates observed in such datasets correspond to natural duplicates sampled from genes with high expression and identified outlier samples with a 2-fold greater PCR duplication rate than other samples. The method described here is a useful tool for estimating the PCR duplication rate of high-throughput sequence datasets and for assessing the fraction of read duplicates that correspond to natural read duplicates. An implementation of the method is available at https://github.com/vibansal/PCRduplicates .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 42 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 25%
Computer Science 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 31 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,188,908
of 24,598,501 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,043
of 7,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,905
of 312,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#15
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,598,501 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.