Title |
Benchmarking short sequence mapping tools
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-14-184 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ayat Hatem, Doruk Bozdağ, Amanda E Toland, Ümit V Çatalyürek |
Abstract |
The development of next-generation sequencing instruments has led to the generation of millions of short sequences in a single run. The process of aligning these reads to a reference genome is time consuming and demands the development of fast and accurate alignment tools. However, the current proposed tools make different compromises between the accuracy and the speed of mapping. Moreover, many important aspects are overlooked while comparing the performance of a newly developed tool to the state of the art. Therefore, there is a need for an objective evaluation method that covers all the aspects. In this work, we introduce a benchmarking suite to extensively analyze sequencing tools with respect to various aspects and provide an objective comparison. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 13 | 25% |
United Kingdom | 6 | 11% |
Norway | 3 | 6% |
Switzerland | 2 | 4% |
Germany | 2 | 4% |
Canada | 2 | 4% |
France | 2 | 4% |
Montenegro | 1 | 2% |
Malawi | 1 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 17% |
Unknown | 12 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 28 | 53% |
Members of the public | 24 | 45% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 14 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 8 | 2% |
France | 5 | 1% |
Brazil | 5 | 1% |
Italy | 3 | <1% |
Sweden | 3 | <1% |
Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
Germany | 2 | <1% |
Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
Other | 14 | 3% |
Unknown | 388 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 116 | 26% |
Researcher | 115 | 26% |
Student > Master | 57 | 13% |
Other | 30 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 28 | 6% |
Other | 54 | 12% |
Unknown | 46 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 213 | 48% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 77 | 17% |
Computer Science | 42 | 9% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 4% |
Engineering | 13 | 3% |
Other | 25 | 6% |
Unknown | 58 | 13% |