↓ Skip to main content

Reproducibility of Illumina platform deep sequencing errors allows accurate determination of DNA barcodes in cells

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Reproducibility of Illumina platform deep sequencing errors allows accurate determination of DNA barcodes in cells
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-0999-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joost B. Beltman, Jos Urbanus, Arno Velds, Nienke van Rooij, Jan C. Rohr, Shalin H. Naik, Ton N. Schumacher

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) of amplified DNA is a powerful tool to describe genetic heterogeneity within cell populations that can both be used to investigate the clonal structure of cell populations and to perform genetic lineage tracing. For applications in which both abundant and rare sequences are biologically relevant, the relatively high error rate of NGS techniques complicates data analysis, as it is difficult to distinguish rare true sequences from spurious sequences that are generated by PCR or sequencing errors. This issue, for instance, applies to cellular barcoding strategies that aim to follow the amount and type of offspring of single cells, by supplying these with unique heritable DNA tags. Here, we use genetic barcoding data from the Illumina HiSeq platform to show that straightforward read threshold-based filtering of data is typically insufficient to filter out spurious barcodes. Importantly, we demonstrate that specific sequencing errors occur at an approximately constant rate across different samples that are sequenced in parallel. We exploit this observation by developing a novel approach to filter out spurious sequences. Application of our new method demonstrates its value in the identification of true sequences amongst spurious sequences in biological data sets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,383,747
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,106
of 7,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,249
of 315,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#38
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,735 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 315,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.