Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s13059-017-1213-3 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s13059-017-1213-3 C5436433!5436433!28521789     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Genome+Biol 2017 ; 18 (ä): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=28521789|t=2017. A comparative evaluation of genome assembly reconciliation tools |pdf=|usr=}}{{28521789}} gab.com Text A comparative evaluation of genome assembly reconciliation tools JO: Genome Biol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28521789 #FOAvip Background: The majority of eukaryotic genomes are unfinished due to the algorithmic challenges of assembling them. A variety of assembly and scaffolding tools are available, but it is not always obvious which tool or parameters to use for a specific genome size and complexity. It is, therefore, common practice to produce multiple assemblies using different assemblers and parameters, then select the best one for public release. A more compelling approach would allow one to merge multiple assemblies with the intent of producing a higher quality consensus assembly, which is the objective of assembly reconciliation. Results: Several assembly reconciliation tools have been proposed in the literature, but their strengths and weaknesses have never been compared on a common dataset. We fill this need with this work, in which we report on an extensive comparative evaluation of several tools. Specifically, we evaluate contiguity, correctness, coverage, and the duplication ratio of the merged assembly compared to the individual assemblies provided as input. Conclusions: None of the tools we tested consistently improved the quality of the input GAGE and synthetic assemblies. Our experiments show an increase in contiguity in the consensus assembly when the original assemblies already have high quality. In terms of correctness, the quality of the results depends on the specific tool, as well as on the quality and the ranking of the input assemblies. In general, the number of misassemblies ranges from being comparable to the best of the input assembly to being comparable to the worst of the input assembly. Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1213-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Twit Text FOAVip A comparative evaluation of genome assembly reconciliation tools ????Genome Biol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28521789 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28521789 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|28521789}}</ref> A comparative evaluation of genome assembly reconciliation tools #MMPMID28521789 Alhakami H; Mirebrahim H; Lonardi S Genome Biol 2017[]; 18 (ä): ä PMID28521789show ga Background: The majority of eukaryotic genomes are unfinished due to the algorithmic challenges of assembling them. A variety of assembly and scaffolding tools are available, but it is not always obvious which tool or parameters to use for a specific genome size and complexity. It is, therefore, common practice to produce multiple assemblies using different assemblers and parameters, then select the best one for public release. A more compelling approach would allow one to merge multiple assemblies with the intent of producing a higher quality consensus assembly, which is the objective of assembly reconciliation. Results: Several assembly reconciliation tools have been proposed in the literature, but their strengths and weaknesses have never been compared on a common dataset. We fill this need with this work, in which we report on an extensive comparative evaluation of several tools. Specifically, we evaluate contiguity, correctness, coverage, and the duplication ratio of the merged assembly compared to the individual assemblies provided as input. Conclusions: None of the tools we tested consistently improved the quality of the input GAGE and synthetic assemblies. Our experiments show an increase in contiguity in the consensus assembly when the original assemblies already have high quality. In terms of correctness, the quality of the results depends on the specific tool, as well as on the quality and the ranking of the input assemblies. In general, the number of misassemblies ranges from being comparable to the best of the input assembly to being comparable to the worst of the input assembly. Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1213-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. äA comparative evaluation of genome assembly reconciliation tools (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing