↓ Skip to main content

A benchmark study on error-correction by read-pairing and tag-clustering in amplicon-based deep sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, February 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
patent
6 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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 benchmark study on error-correction by read-pairing and tag-clustering in amplicon-based deep sequencing
Published in
BMC Genomics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2388-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tian-Hao Zhang, Nicholas C. Wu, Ren Sun

Abstract

The high error rate of next generation sequencing (NGS) restricts some of its applications, such as monitoring virus mutations and detecting rare mutations in tumors. There are two commonly employed sequencing library preparation strategies to improve sequencing accuracy by correcting sequencing errors: read-pairing method and tag-clustering method (i.e. primer ID or UID). Here, we constructed a homogeneous library from a single clone, and compared the variant calling accuracy of these error-correction methods. We comprehensively described the strengths and pitfalls of these methods. We found that both read-pairing and tag-clustering methods significantly decreased sequencing error rate. While the read-pairing method was more effective than the tag-clustering method at correcting insertion and deletion errors, it was not as effective as the tag-clustering method at correcting substitution errors. In addition, we observed that when the read quality was poor, the tag-clustering method led to huge coverage loss. We also tested the effect of applying quality score filtering to the error-correction methods and demonstrated that quality score filtering was able to impose a minor, yet statistically significant improvement to the error-correction methods tested in this study. Our study provides a benchmark for researchers to select suitable error-correction methods based on the goal of the experiment by balancing the trade-off between sequencing cost (i.e. sequencing coverage requirement) and detection sensitivity.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 27 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,193,554
of 23,572,442 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#621
of 10,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,887
of 403,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#16
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,572,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,796 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 403,826 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.