Back

A Comparison of Performance for Different SARS-Cov-2 Sequencing Protocols

Bermudez, J.

2021-03-01 genetics
10.1101/2021.03.01.433428 bioRxiv
Show abstract

SARS-Cov-2 genome sequencing has been identified as a fundamental tool for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. It is used, for example, for identifying new variants of the virus and for elaborating phylogenetic trees that help to trace the spread of the virus. In the present study we provide a comprehensive comparison between the quality of the assemblies obtained from different sequencing protocols. We demonstrate how some protocols actively promoted by different high-level administrations are inefficient and how less-used alternative protocols show a significant increased performance. This increase of performance could lead to cheaper sequencing protocols and therefore to a more convenient escalation of the sequencing efforts around the world.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
28.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Current Protocols
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Clinical Virology
○ 63 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
7
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.5%
8
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.2%
9
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.2%
10
BioTechniques
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
Genes
○ 144 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
12
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
● 130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
14
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
15
Wellcome Open Research
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
16
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
18
Journal of Medical Virology
○ 140 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
Virus Research
○ 37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
20
Methods
○ 34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
21
Viruses
○ 332 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
BioMed Research International
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
24
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
25
Microbial Genomics
● 225 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
26
BMC Biology
○ 265 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.