Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33845884›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2021

Computational methods for chromosome-scale haplotype reconstruction.

Shilpa Garg

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Short-Read NGS of a Long-RangeInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Exploring standing genetic variation for barley leaf rust resistance in Australian breeding panel.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Local Haplotyping Analysis for Flowering Time in Soybean Using Crosshap.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shilpa GargDepartment of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. shilpa.garg@bio.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-0200-4200
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-quality chromosome-scale haplotype sequences of diploid genomes, polyploid genomes, and metagenomes provide important insights into genetic variation associated with disease and biodiversity. However, whole-genome short read sequencing does not yield haplotype information spanning whole chromosomes directly. Computational assembly of shorter haplotype fragments is required for haplotype reconstruction, which can be challenging owing to limited fragment lengths and high haplotype and repeat variability across genomes. Recent advancements in long-read and chromosome-scale sequencing technologies, alongside computational innovations, are improving the reconstruction of haplotypes at the level of whole chromosomes. Here, we review recent and discuss methodological progress and perspectives in these areas.

Indexed as

ChromosomesHaplotypesComputational BiologyDiploidyGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomeMetagenomicsPolyploidySequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID33845884
PMCPMC8040228
OpenAlexW3156261638

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.