Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(5)
The 1,002,849,328 bases of mapped reads achieved 303.0-fold 303.0-fold
Therefore, a number of filtering steps were performed on the cDNA reads achieved.
Sequencing output was variable across sequenced genotypes, with a maximum of 52,711 (PI 287820) and minimum of 3,231 (Resolute) sequence reads achieved per genotype (Table 1).
As reported previously [ 22], the distribution of reads was non-uniform across the three DNA samples, with 1.2 million reads achieved for globe artichoke, 2.6 million for cultivated cardoon and 5.9 million for wild cardoon.
To avoid the compute-expensive pairwise alignment, existing methods typically identify common kmers (de Bruijn graph based methods) or maximal substrings (overlap-layout-consensus based methods) among input reads, achieved using efficient data structures such as de Bruijn graphs [ 24, 25], suffix tree/array [ 29], and Burrows-Wheeler transformation [ 30].
Similar(55)
The completed genome sequence of WY96 contains 41,748 reads, achieving an average of 16-fold sequence coverage per base with an error rate less than 1 in 100,000.
The completed genome sequence of A. muciniphila contains 50,774 reads, achieving an average of 17.7-fold sequence coverage per base with an error rate less than 1 in 100,000.
The completed genome sequence of D. geothermalis (DSM 11300) contained 36,718 reads, achieving an average of 8-fold sequence coverage per base with an error rate less than 1 in 100,000.
The completed genome sequences of K. radiotolerans SRS30216 contains 71,381 reads, achieving an average of 14-fold sequence coverage per base with an error rate less than 1 in 100,000.
We generated 137 million paired-end reads, achieving an average coverage of 118× over designed capture regions, and with >90% of target regions covered by ≥10 reads.
aurantiacus genome sequence contains 61248 reads, achieving an average of 11-fold sequence coverage per base with an error rate less than 1 in 100,000.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com