↓ Skip to main content

EC: an efficient error correction algorithm for short reads

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
EC: an efficient error correction algorithm for short reads
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-16-s17-s2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Subrata Saha, Sanguthevar Rajasekaran

Abstract

In highly parallel next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques millions to billions of short reads are produced from a genomic sequence in a single run. Due to the limitation of the NGS technologies, there could be errors in the reads. The error rate of the reads can be reduced with trimming and by correcting the erroneous bases of the reads. It helps to achieve high quality data and the computational complexity of many biological applications will be greatly reduced if the reads are first corrected. We have developed a novel error correction algorithm called EC and compared it with four other state-of-the-art algorithms using both real and simulated sequencing reads. We have done extensive and rigorous experiments that reveal that EC is indeed an effective, scalable, and efficient error correction tool. Real reads that we have employed in our performance evaluation are Illumina-generated short reads of various lengths. Six experimental datasets we have utilized are taken from sequence and read archive (SRA) at NCBI. The simulated reads are obtained by picking substrings from random positions of reference genomes. To introduce errors, some of the bases of the simulated reads are changed to other bases with some probabilities. Error correction is a vital problem in biology especially for NGS data. In this paper we present a novel algorithm, called Error Corrector (EC), for correcting substitution errors in biological sequencing reads. We plan to investigate the possibility of employing the techniques introduced in this research paper to handle insertion and deletion errors also. The implementation is freely available for non-commercial purposes. It can be downloaded from: http://engr.uconn.edu/~rajasek/EC.zip.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 24%
Computer Science 6 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Engineering 2 7%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,778,896
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,937
of 7,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,925
of 388,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#132
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 388,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.