Matthew MacManes


October 27, 2016
2 citations
184 downloads
636 views
,
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2617 PubMed 27812417
June 14, 2016
193 downloads
550 views
,
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2098 PubMed 27326374
May 2, 2016
1 citation
203 downloads
1,131 views
, , , ,
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1952 PubMed 27168971
October 28, 2014
8 citations
605 downloads
2,571 views
,
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.642 PubMed 25374784
July 23, 2013
15 citations
844 downloads
5,655 views
,
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.113 PubMed 23904992
January 21, 2016 - Version: 1
53 downloads
197 views
, , , ,
https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1671v1
April 23, 2013 - Version: 1
367 downloads
814 views
https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.10

Provided feedback on

20 Mar 2014

Chris et. al., I would consider deemphasizing (e.g. eliminating) N50 as a way to evaluate assembly quality. There is plenty of evidence that maximizing N50 may lead us astray, give...

05 Nov 2014

If I were reviewing (or reading) this manuscript, I'd want to know some more details about how you did your assembly (flags used in Trinity for instance). Also, were raw reads real...