scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Broad Institute

NonprofitCambridge, Massachusetts, United States
About: Broad Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Genome-wide association study. The organization has 6584 authors who have published 11618 publications receiving 1522743 citations. The organization is also known as: Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
19 Nov 2014-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: Pilon is a fully automated, all-in-one tool for correcting draft assemblies and calling sequence variants of multiple sizes, including very large insertions and deletions, which is being used to improve the assemblies of thousands of new genomes and to identify variants from thousands of clinically relevant bacterial strains.
Abstract: Advances in modern sequencing technologies allow us to generate sufficient data to analyze hundreds of bacterial genomes from a single machine in a single day. This potential for sequencing massive numbers of genomes calls for fully automated methods to produce high-quality assemblies and variant calls. We introduce Pilon, a fully automated, all-in-one tool for correcting draft assemblies and calling sequence variants of multiple sizes, including very large insertions and deletions. Pilon works with many types of sequence data, but is particularly strong when supplied with paired end data from two Illumina libraries with small e.g., 180 bp and large e.g., 3-5 Kb inserts. Pilon significantly improves draft genome assemblies by correcting bases, fixing mis-assemblies and filling gaps. For both haploid and diploid genomes, Pilon produces more contiguous genomes with fewer errors, enabling identification of more biologically relevant genes. Furthermore, Pilon identifies small variants with high accuracy as compared to state-of-the-art tools and is unique in its ability to accurately identify large sequence variants including duplications and resolve large insertions. Pilon is being used to improve the assemblies of thousands of new genomes and to identify variants from thousands of clinically relevant bacterial strains. Pilon is freely available as open source software.

5,659 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
21 May 2015-Cell
TL;DR: Drop-seq will accelerate biological discovery by enabling routine transcriptional profiling at single-cell resolution by separating them into nanoliter-sized aqueous droplets, associating a different barcode with each cell's RNAs, and sequencing them all together.

5,506 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
John W. Belmont1, Andrew Boudreau, Suzanne M. Leal1, Paul Hardenbol  +229 moreInstitutions (40)
27 Oct 2005
TL;DR: A public database of common variation in the human genome: more than one million single nucleotide polymorphisms for which accurate and complete genotypes have been obtained in 269 DNA samples from four populations, including ten 500-kilobase regions in which essentially all information about common DNA variation has been extracted.
Abstract: Inherited genetic variation has a critical but as yet largely uncharacterized role in human disease. Here we report a public database of common variation in the human genome: more than one million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for which accurate and complete genotypes have been obtained in 269 DNA samples from four populations, including ten 500-kilobase regions in which essentially all information about common DNA variation has been extracted. These data document the generality of recombination hotspots, a block-like structure of linkage disequilibrium and low haplotype diversity, leading to substantial correlations of SNPs with many of their neighbours. We show how the HapMap resource can guide the design and analysis of genetic association studies, shed light on structural variation and recombination, and identify loci that may have been subject to natural selection during human evolution.

5,479 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This unit describes how to use BWA and the Genome Analysis Toolkit to map genome sequencing data to a reference and produce high‐quality variant calls that can be used in downstream analyses.
Abstract: This unit describes how to use BWA and the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) to map genome sequencing data to a reference and produce high-quality variant calls that can be used in downstream analyses. The complete workflow includes the core NGS data processing steps that are necessary to make the raw data suitable for analysis by the GATK, as well as the key methods involved in variant discovery using the GATK.

5,150 citations


Authors

Showing all 7146 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Eric S. Lander301826525976
Albert Hofman2672530321405
Frank B. Hu2501675253464
David J. Hunter2131836207050
Kari Stefansson206794174819
Mark J. Daly204763304452
Lewis C. Cantley196748169037
Matthew Meyerson194553243726
Gad Getz189520247560
Stacey Gabriel187383294284
Stuart H. Orkin186715112182
Ralph Weissleder1841160142508
Chris Sander178713233287
Michael I. Jordan1761016216204
Richard A. Young173520126642
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
34.6K papers, 5.2M citations

96% related

Salk Institute for Biological Studies
13.1K papers, 1.6M citations

94% related

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
30.9K papers, 2.2M citations

93% related

Scripps Research Institute
32.8K papers, 2.9M citations

93% related

Genentech
17.1K papers, 1.4M citations

93% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202337
2022627
20211,727
20201,534
20191,364
20181,107