Back

NGS method for parallel processing of high quality, damaged or fragmented input material using target enrichment

Lyander, A.; Gellerbring, A.; Hagglund, M.; Elhami, K.; Wirta, V.

2023-01-18 genomics
10.1101/2023.01.15.524106 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been increasingly popular in genomics studies over the last decade and is now commonly used in clinical applications for precision diagnostics. Many disease areas typically involve different kinds of sample specimens, sample qualities and quantities. The quality of the DNA can range from intact, high molecular weight molecules to degraded, damaged and very short molecules. The differences in quality and quantity pose challenges for downstream molecular analyses. To overcome the challenge with the need of different molecular methods for different types of samples, we have developed a joint procedure for preparing enriched DNA libraries from high molecular weight DNA and DNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue, fresh frozen tissue material, as well as cell-free DNA.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 18%
9.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 17%
5.2%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Methods
○ 34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
Similar papers in this journal
5
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
○ 494 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
6
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
Genes
○ 144 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.4%
8
Current Protocols
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
9
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.6%
10
Genomics
○ 64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
11
Molecular Biology Reports
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
14
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
15
Gigabyte
● 62 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
16
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
17
Nature Protocols
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
18
Oncotarget
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
19
Journal of Clinical Virology
○ 63 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
20
Clinical Chemistry
◐ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
21
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
● 242 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
22
Analytical Biochemistry
○ 26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
24
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
25
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
26
BioTechniques
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
27
Scientific Data
○ 209 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
28
STAR Protocols
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
29
Molecular Ecology Resources
○ 171 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
30
Cancer Research Communications
● 51 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%

"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.