Figure S1. Single-gene phylogeny with multiple cross contaminations. Figure S2. Comparison between transcript categorisation by CroCo and a reference set of manually detected cross contaminations. Figure S3. Benchmarking CroCo using simulations. Figure S4. Network visualisation of cross contamination patterns in dataset B. Figure S5. Network visualisation of cross contamination patterns in dataset C. Figure S6. Network visualisation of cross contamination patterns in dataset D. Figure S7. Network visualisation of cross contamination patterns in dataset E. Figure S8. Network visualisation of cross contamination patterns in dataset F. Table S1. Datasets from six recent sequencing projects analysed with CroCo. Table S2. Effect of fold differen...
Table S1. Number of genomes left in the reference databases and training sets of the methods used in...
Table S1. Summary of parental blocks from the intermediate files of ‘parent1.abxaa.5snps.blocks’, ‘p...
Accumulative mapping rate of four aligners. Figure S2. SNP calling sensitivity at 0.05–1 % divergenc...
Contaminant species-associated statistics. Each dot is for a contaminant species, that is, a species...
Effect of laboratory and sequencing center variables on the probability of contamination, with the m...
Effect of laboratory metadata, at least ten reads per contaminant. See legend to Fig. 3. Here, at l...
The numbers of CTXs in each sample after filtering process and chromosome coordinates of all CTXs. 1...
Venn diagrams showing overlap of top 20 genes identified by different software ENCoRE, MAGeCK, and e...
Cascade database schema. The database schema for Cascade is shown with boxes differentiating the thr...
Supplementary Tables. Table S1 lists the number of SNV and indel mutations found in each individual ...
Figure S1. ARG abundance profile-based PCoA across all collected metagenomics datasets (featured by ...
Figure S1. Sliding window (5Â bp) analysis showing the distribution of homopolymer regions in the CO...
Supplementary Figures S1-S13. Figure S1. Comparison of mutant allele fraction (MAF) in diluted sampl...
Supplementary text 1.1: Filter Sensitivity Analysis. Supplementary text 1.2: Investigating Highly Di...
Pipelines of pooled library screen analysis. Table S1. Public library sets of shRNA, sgRNA and delet...
Table S1. Number of genomes left in the reference databases and training sets of the methods used in...
Table S1. Summary of parental blocks from the intermediate files of ‘parent1.abxaa.5snps.blocks’, ‘p...
Accumulative mapping rate of four aligners. Figure S2. SNP calling sensitivity at 0.05–1 % divergenc...
Contaminant species-associated statistics. Each dot is for a contaminant species, that is, a species...
Effect of laboratory and sequencing center variables on the probability of contamination, with the m...
Effect of laboratory metadata, at least ten reads per contaminant. See legend to Fig. 3. Here, at l...
The numbers of CTXs in each sample after filtering process and chromosome coordinates of all CTXs. 1...
Venn diagrams showing overlap of top 20 genes identified by different software ENCoRE, MAGeCK, and e...
Cascade database schema. The database schema for Cascade is shown with boxes differentiating the thr...
Supplementary Tables. Table S1 lists the number of SNV and indel mutations found in each individual ...
Figure S1. ARG abundance profile-based PCoA across all collected metagenomics datasets (featured by ...
Figure S1. Sliding window (5Â bp) analysis showing the distribution of homopolymer regions in the CO...
Supplementary Figures S1-S13. Figure S1. Comparison of mutant allele fraction (MAF) in diluted sampl...
Supplementary text 1.1: Filter Sensitivity Analysis. Supplementary text 1.2: Investigating Highly Di...
Pipelines of pooled library screen analysis. Table S1. Public library sets of shRNA, sgRNA and delet...
Table S1. Number of genomes left in the reference databases and training sets of the methods used in...
Table S1. Summary of parental blocks from the intermediate files of ‘parent1.abxaa.5snps.blocks’, ‘p...
Accumulative mapping rate of four aligners. Figure S2. SNP calling sensitivity at 0.05–1 % divergenc...