ArticleGenome research2026
Strong bias in long-read sequencing prevents assembly of
Article in Genome research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysing long-read CRISPR experiments with CRISPRLungo.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Automatic generation of model sequences for complex regions in assembly graphs with TTT.Cell genomics · 2026Article
- Automatic Generation of Model Sequences for Complex Regions in Assembly Graphs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Analyzing long-read CRISPR experiments with CRISPRLungo.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Genetic variation in recalcitrant repetitive regions of theGenome research · 2025Article
- OligoY pipeline for full Y chromosome painting.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- When numbers matter: Rethinking the role of gene duplication on short evolutionary timescales.American journal of botany · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) and Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) are generally considered free from sequence composition bias, a key factor, alongside read length, that explains their success in producing high-quality genome assemblies. Indeed, there had been very few reports of bias, the clearest one against GA-rich repeats in the human genome. However, our study reveals a systematic failure of both technologies to sequence and assemble specific exons of
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.