Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41938753›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Automated evaluation of multiple sequence alignment methods to handle third generation sequencing errors.

Coralie Rohmer, Hélène Touzet, Antoine Limasset

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Coralie RohmerUniversité de Lille, Lille, France.
Hélène TouzetUniversité de Lille, Lille, France.
Antoine LimassetUniversité de Lille, Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most third-generation sequencing (TGS) processing tools rely on multiple sequence alignment (MSA) methods to manage sequencing errors. Despite the broad range of MSA approaches available, a limited selection of implementations are commonly used in practice for this type of application, and no comprehensive comparative assessment of existing tools has been undertaken to date. In this context, we have developed an automatic pipeline, named MSA Limit, designed to facilitate the execution and evaluation of diverse MSA methods across a spectrum of conditions representative of TGS reads. MSA Limit offers insights into alignment accuracy, time efficiency, and memory utilization. It serves as a valuable resource for both users and developers, aiding in the assessment of algorithmic performance and assisting users in selecting the most appropriate tool for their specific experimental settings. Through a series of experiments using real and simulated data, we demonstrate the value of such exploration. Our findings reveal that in certain scenarios, popular methods may not consistently exhibit optimal efficiency and that the choice of the most effective method varies depending on factors such as sequencing depth, genome characteristics, and read error patterns. MSA Limit is an open source and freely available tool. All code and data pertaining to it and this manuscript are available at https://gitlab.cristal.univ-lille.fr/crohmer/msa-limit.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareAlgorithmsHumansBenchmarkHeterozygosityLong readsMultiple sequence alignmentOxford nanoporePacific bioscienceSequencing errors

Identifiers

PMID41938753
PMCPMC13048229

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.