AuraGenome: An LLM-Powered Framework for On-the-Fly Reusable and Scalable Circular Genome Visualizations

Bixia Tang; Chi Zhang; Guihua Shan; Yang Wang; Yu Dong; Yuetong Han

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 20 references

AuraGenome: An LLM-Powered Framework for On-the-Fly Reusable and Scalable Circular Genome Visualizations

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an LLM-powered multi-agent system lets biologists build circular genome charts in roughly a third of the time, with higher accuracy.

desk verdict AuraGenome is a thoughtful and potentially useful LLM-powered workflow for circular genome plots, but the headline time and accuracy gains rest on a small, methodologically under-reported user study that needs major revision before the quantitative claims can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02877 v1 pith:E3S5TAY7 submitted 2025-06-18 q-bio.GN cs.AIcs.GRcs.HC

Chi Zhang , Yu Dong , Yang Wang , Yuetong Han , Guihua Shan , Bixia Tang This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.GNcs.AIcs.GRcs.HC

keywords circulargenomevisualizationmulti-agentworkflowlargelanguagemodelsvisualanalyticsD3.jsnaturalinterfacereuseuserstudy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that an LLM-powered multi-agent framework can replace hand-scripted configuration for circular genome visualization, producing results faster and with comparable or better quality. If true, domain scientists can explore structural variants and gene regulation without writing complex configuration files. The paper supports this with a seven-agent pipeline that parses intent, plans layout, generates and validates D3.js code, and a visual interface that makes each generation step reusable. In a controlled comparison with 12 biology researchers, the same multi-layered circular chart took about 34 minutes with AuraGenome versus 112 minutes with the standard script-based tool Circos, with mean output accuracy 89 percent versus 76 percent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the seven-agent workflow plus the layer-aware Sequence Log View. The workflow decomposes a visualization request into modular steps handled by specialized LLM agents, supported by structured prompt blocks, retrieval-augmented generation from a curated template library, and modular D3.js utility functions that keep code generation at the level of content and parameters rather than low-level syntax. The Sequence Log View encodes each generation step as a node with layout type and status, letting users branch from prior states and reuse configurations; this is what makes generation reusable and traceable.

What would settle it

Re-run the comparison on a task and accuracy rubric designed by independent visualization researchers, with a larger cohort and blinded scoring of outputs; the central claim would be undermined if the completion-time gap narrows to non-significance or if AuraGenome's accuracy advantage disappears under blinded scoring.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that a semantically decomposed multi-agent workflow can convert raw genomic data and natural-language requests into publication-ready multi-layered circular visualizations without manual scripting. The system pairs seven LLM agents—intent recognition, layout recommendation, D3.js code generation, code modification, validation, explanation, and operational suggestion—with an interactive visual analytics interface whose Sequence Log View records each generation step as a reusable node. In the user study, the same circular chart task took an average of 34 minutes with AuraGenome versus 112 minutes with Circos, and expert-scored output accuracy averaged 89 percent versus 76 percent. Two case studies, one on AML chromosomal translocations and gene expression and one on the COLO-829 somatic mutation landscape, are presented as evidence that the workflow supports real analysis and cross-task reuse.

Load-bearing premise

The effectiveness claim rests on the assumption that the 12-participant single-task user study and the two expert-led case studies are representative of real circular-genome visualization work, and that the author-designed accuracy rubric captures output quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Biologists without programming expertise can independently produce publication-ready circular genome charts, lowering the barrier to entry for exploratory genomic analysis.
Visualization workflows become reusable: a user can inherit layout logic and code from a previous project, as demonstrated by branching from the AML case to build the COLO-829 chart.
Natural-language refinement with real-time visual feedback can replace iterative configuration-file editing, cutting the time spent on trial-and-error styling.
The same structured multi-agent design, if extended, could support other layout families, but the current system is explicitly limited to circular layouts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the time savings hold beyond the single studied task, a likely mechanism is that LLM-generated code scaffolds replace the slow assembly of configuration blocks; a direct test would compare AuraGenome against a template-based authoring tool rather than manual scripting.
The Sequence Log View is effectively a provenance and reuse graph; this design could generalize to collaborative or reproducible visualization workflows, where sharing a branch of generation steps becomes sharing an analysis recipe.
The paper leaves open whether its accuracy rubric rewards chart completeness rather than biological correctness; a follow-up with domain-expert verification of the resulting charts would separate the two.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea here is genuinely new: instead of asking an LLM to produce a whole Circos-style plot from scratch, the authors decompose the job into seven role-specific agents, ground them with D3 templates and a RAG knowledge base, and tie the whole thing together with a visual analytics system whose sequence log lets users branch and reuse earlier steps. The GenoVis-300 pre-study that maps LLM strengths to agent roles is a sensible design move, and the COLO-829 case, where the system reproduces a published Nature figure, gives the work some external anchor. The framework is coherent, well described, and the case studies read as honest demonstrations of what the system can do.

The soft spot is the user study, and it is the load-bearing evidence for the paper's 'rapid, reusable, scalable' claim. Twelve participants, one task, a within-subject crossover with no order-effect analysis. Because the task is identical in both conditions, the group that did Circos first gets a practice pass on the exact same chart before touching AuraGenome; the paper does not address how much of the 34-vs-112-minute gap is learning transfer. The one participant who did not finish in 150 minutes is mentioned but not handled explicitly, which materially changes the Circos mean. Accuracy is reported as 89% vs 76%, but the two 'independent experts' had no described rubric, no blinding, and no inter-rater reliability. No significance test is given for time or accuracy at all, only Mann-Whitney U on Likert items. And no evaluation artifacts are released despite the GitHub link, so the quantitative results are not reproducible. The comparison is only against Circos, so the specific benefit of the seven-agent architecture over a simpler LLM baseline is untested.

That said, the direction of the effect is plausible, and the qualitative feedback plus the reuse logic give me real confidence that the system helps. The paper's own limitations section is honest about linear/hybrid layouts not being supported, though it underplays the statistical weaknesses. This is a solid systems paper with a weak evaluation section, not a paper with a broken core.

I would send this to peer review and ask for major revision: report order-effect statistics, state how the incomplete participant was handled, spell out the accuracy rubric and inter-rater reliability, release the prompts and task materials, and soften the superiority claims until the evidence is solid. For visualization practitioners and bioinformatics tool builders, this is worth reading now.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AuraGenome, a framework that combines seven specialized LLM-driven agents with an interactive visual analytics system to generate multi-layered circular genome visualizations from natural language and tabular genomic data. The system supports ring, radial, and chord layouts, offers a sequence-log-based reuse mechanism, and includes RAG-grounded code generation with modular code interfaces. The authors evaluate AuraGenome through two expert-led case studies (AML translocation/expression profiling and reproduction of a COLO-829 Nature figure) and a within-subject user study (n=12) comparing AuraGenome with Circos. The reported quantitative results are a 34-minute (SD 9.16) versus 112-minute (SD 16.5) completion time, 89% (SD 4.61) versus 76% (SD 18.31) accuracy, and statistically significant Likert-scale differences on five of six questions.

Significance. If the results hold, AuraGenome would meaningfully lower the technical barrier for genomics researchers to create publication-ready circular plots, and the paper's system design is a substantial engineering contribution: the requirement analysis with eight domain experts, the GenoVis-300 pre-study for model-to-agent assignment, the structured prompt architecture, and the two case studies (including an external anchor in the COLO-829 reproduction) all give useful evidence that the approach is workable. However, the user study as reported does not yet support the headline quantitative claims. The missing order-effect analysis, lack of paired significance tests, absent accuracy-scoring protocol, and unclear handling of an incomplete Circos observation mean that the measured 69% time reduction and 13-point accuracy gap may be artifacts of the evaluation design. The framework itself is plausible and well-motivated, but the evidence needs strengthening before the paper's central claims can be accepted.

major comments (6)

[User Study, Study Design and Implementation] The within-subject crossover uses the identical task in both conditions, but the paper reports no order-effect analysis. Group A performs the task with Circos first, giving participants a full practice pass on the dataset and target chart before they use AuraGenome; Group B uses AuraGenome first and then faces Circos with a known target and possible fatigue. Under this design, the 34- versus 112-minute difference may partly or entirely reflect learning transfer rather than tool effectiveness. The authors should report per-group means for time and accuracy, or restructure the study with two matched but different tasks, and include an order term in the statistical analysis.
[User Study, Quantitative Results (Figure 8-a)] Accuracy scores are the only output-quality measure, but the paper does not describe the scoring rubric, whether the two experts were blinded to tool identity, or the inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa). Without a rubric and reliability statistics, the 89% versus 76% difference cannot be interpreted. Please provide the scoring protocol and an inter-rater agreement measure.
[User Study, Quantitative Results] No significance test is reported for task completion time or accuracy; the only inferential statistics in the section are Mann-Whitney U tests on Likert items. The statement that 'AuraGenome significantly outperformed Circos' is not supported without paired tests appropriate to the within-subject design (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) for time and accuracy, along with effect sizes.
[User Study, Quantitative Results] The paper states that one participant could not complete the Circos task within the 150-minute maximum but does not say how this observation entered the analysis. If that participant's time was capped at 150 minutes, excluded, or imputed, the Circos mean of 112 minutes changes materially. The handling of this participant must be stated explicitly.
[User Study and Case Studies] The evaluation compares AuraGenome only with Circos; there is no LLM-based baseline (e.g., IntelliCircos, or direct prompting of GPT-4o/DeepSeek-R1 without the multi-agent workflow). Because the user study cannot separate the contribution of the seven-agent architecture from the simple fact of using an LLM, the claim that the multi-agent design specifically drives the gains is not evidenced. At minimum, the authors should acknowledge this as a limitation or provide an ablation.
[Availability and Reproducibility] The paper cites GenoVis-300, the user-study task dataset, accuracy scores, and interaction logs, but none of these artifacts are available at the provided GitHub repository. Without the benchmark prompts, the task specification, and the anonymized scores, the quantitative results cannot be independently checked. Please release these artifacts or clearly mark the repository as containing the evaluation data.

minor comments (5)

[User Study, Study Design and Implementation] The phrase 'Performance was evaluated quatitative analysis' contains a typo; 'quatitative' should be 'quantitative'. In addition, 'We summarized them for futher thematic analysis' should read 'further'.
[AuraGenome Multi-Agent Workflow, Pre-Study] In the GenoVis-300 pre-study, 'condidates' should be 'candidates', and in requirement R2 'suiteable' should be 'suitable'.
[AuraGenome Visual Analytics System, System Overview] The text later refers to 'Parameter Panel (Figure 4-e)' and 'Sequence Log View (Figure 4-f)', but in the System Overview the Track Parameter Panel is labeled (f) and the Sequence Log View is labeled (g). The figure callouts need to be reconciled.
[Case Studies, Case 1] Case 1 describes steps A1-A2, A3, A5, and A6-A7, but there is no A4 in the description or in Figure 6. Either add A4 to the workflow or renumber the panels.
[Prompt Strategy 1] The pseudocode contains 'Y ou are an expert' with an extra space in 'You'; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework's central claims are supported by external benchmarks (Circos comparison, COLO-829 reproduction) and empirical user studies rather than by construction or self-citation.

full rationale

I examined the paper's derivation chain for circular steps. The system's claimed capabilities are validated through a user study that compares AuraGenome against Circos, an external baseline, and through a case study that reproduces the structure of a published Nature visualization (COLO-829). These are independent empirical anchors, not consequences of the paper's own definitions. The GenoVis-300 pre-study is an internal design input used to choose LLM agents (GPT-4o for language-oriented agents, DeepSeek-R1 for code-focused agents), but this pre-study does not define the measured outcomes of the later user study; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No equation-level reduction, no self-citation chain, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work appears in the paper. Concerns about the user study's validity—such as the single identical task, lack of reported inter-rater reliability, and possible practice effects—are methodological evaluation risks, not circularity of reasoning. The manuscript also contains no self-referential passages asserting circularity or missing support. Accordingly, the analysis finds no significant circularity, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rely on the reliability of commercial LLMs, an author-curated template library, and a small qualitative requirements study; none of these are independently verified in the preprint. The only explicit numerical choices are the RAG retrieval weights 0.7 and 0.3.

free parameters (1)

RAG retrieval weights = semantic weight 0.7, keyword weight 0.3
Used in 'Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Code Generation' to combine vector and keyword search. The weights are stated without sensitivity analysis or a fitting procedure.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The pre-study capability ranking of GPT-4o, GPT-o1, and DeepSeek-R1 generalizes to deployed multi-agent behavior.
Agent assignment, GPT-4o for language and DeepSeek-R1 for code, is based on the authors' GenoVis-300 evaluation; the preprint does not ship the dataset or raw ratings.
domain assumption The curated D3 code template library is correct and sufficient for the supported layouts and data modalities.
The RAG and code generation agents rely on this library, but its size, contents, and test coverage are not reported.
domain assumption The 42-paper figure survey plus interviews with eight experts yields a complete and unbiased taxonomy of circular genome visualization tasks.
The requirement analysis R1-R6 is qualitative and small-sample; it is the design basis but is not independently validated.
domain assumption Commercial LLM outputs validated by the Code Validation Agent are reliable enough for publication-ready charts.
The validation agent is itself an LLM with a prompt schema; no independent check or error-rate measurement is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AuraGenome: An LLM-Powered Framework for On-the-Fly Reusable and Scalable Circular Genome Visualizations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E3S5TAY7

@misc{pith2026250702877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AuraGenome: An LLM-Powered Framework for On-the-Fly Reusable and Scalable Circular Genome Visualizations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E3S5TAY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02877}
}

read the original abstract

Circular genome visualizations are essential for exploring structural variants and gene regulation. However, existing tools often require complex scripting and manual configuration, making the process time-consuming, error-prone, and difficult to learn. To address these challenges, we introduce AuraGenome, an LLM-powered framework for rapid, reusable, and scalable generation of multi-layered circular genome visualizations. AuraGenome combines a semantic-driven multi-agent workflow with an interactive visual analytics system. The workflow employs seven specialized LLM-driven agents, each assigned distinct roles such as intent recognition, layout planning, and code generation, to transform raw genomic data into tailored visualizations. The system supports multiple coordinated views tailored for genomic data, offering ring, radial, and chord-based layouts to represent multi-layered circular genome visualizations. In addition to enabling interactions and configuration reuse, the system supports real-time refinement and high-quality report export. We validate its effectiveness through two case studies and a comprehensive user study. AuraGenome is available at: https://github.com/Darius18/AuraGenome.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Circos: an information aesthetic for compar- ative genomics,

M. Krzywinski, J. Schein, I. Birol, J. Connors, R. Gascoyne, D. Horsman, S. J. Jones, and M. A. Marra, “Circos: an information aesthetic for compar- ative genomics,”Genome Research, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1639–1645, 2009

work page 2009
[2]

Promises and pitfalls: using large language models to generate visualization items,

Y . Cui, W. G. Lily, Y . Ding, L. Harrison, F . Y ang, and M. Kay, “Promises and pitfalls: using large language models to generate visualization items,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Genome-wide analysis and expression profile of the bZIP gene family in poplar,

K. Zhao, S. Chen, W. Y ao, Z. Cheng, B. Zhou, and T. Jiang, “Genome-wide analysis and expression profile of the bZIP gene family in poplar,”BMC Plant Biology, vol. 21, pp. 1–16, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Antimicrobial resistance and population genomics of multidrug- resistantEscherichia coliin pig farms in mainland China,

Z. Peng, Z. Hu, Z. Li, X. Zhang, C. Jia, T. Li, M. Dai, C. Tan, Z. Xu, B. Wuet al., “Antimicrobial resistance and population genomics of multidrug- resistantEscherichia coliin pig farms in mainland China,”Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1116, 2022. 13 THEME ARTICLE

work page 2022
[5]

Comprehensive genomic resources related to domestication and crop improvement traits in Lima bean,

T. Garcia, J. Duitama, S. S. Zullo, J. Gil, A. Ariani, S. Dohle, A. Palkovic, P . Skeen, C. I. Bermudez- Santana, D. G. Deboucket al., “Comprehensive genomic resources related to domestication and crop improvement traits in Lima bean,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 702, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Genome assembly of wild tea tree DASZ reveals pedigree and selection history of tea varieties,

W. Zhang, Y . Zhang, H. Qiu, Y . Guo, H. Wan, X. Zhang, F . Scossa, S. Alseekh, Q. Zhang, P . Wanget al., “Genome assembly of wild tea tree DASZ reveals pedigree and selection history of tea varieties,”Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3719, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

BioCircos. js: an interactive Circos JavaScript library for biological data visualization on web applications,

Y . Cui, X. Chen, H. Luo, Z. Fan, J. Luo, S. He, H. Yue, P . Zhang, and R. Chen, “BioCircos. js: an interactive Circos JavaScript library for biological data visualization on web applications,”Bioinfor- matics, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1740–1742, 2016

work page 2016
[8]

Circular genome visualization and exploration using CGView,

P . Stothard and D. S. Wishart, “Circular genome visualization and exploration using CGView,”Bioin- formatics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 537–539, 2005

work page 2005

Show all 20 references

[9]

Interactive microbial genome visualization with GView,

A. Petkau, M. Stuart-Edwards, P . Stothard, and G. Van Domselaar, “Interactive microbial genome visualization with GView,”Bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 24, pp. 3125–3126, 2010

2010
[10]

BLAST Ring Image Generator (BRIG): simple prokaryote genome comparisons,

N.-F . Alikhan, N. K. Petty, N. L. Ben Zakour, and S. A. Beatson, “BLAST Ring Image Generator (BRIG): simple prokaryote genome comparisons,” BMC Genomics, vol. 12, pp. 1–10, 2011

2011
[11]

PanVA: pangenomic variant analysis,

A. van den Brandt, E. M. Jonkheer, D.-J. M. van Workum, H. van de Wetering, S. Smit, and A. Vilanova, “PanVA: pangenomic variant analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2023

2023
[12]

Gosling: a grammar-based toolkit for scalable and interactive genomics data visualization,

S. L Yi, Q. Wang, F . Lekschas, and N. Gehlenborg, “Gosling: a grammar-based toolkit for scalable and interactive genomics data visualization,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph- ics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 140–150, 2021

2021
[13]

Enabling multimodal user interactions for genomics visualization creation,

Q. Wang, X. Liu, M. Q. Liang, S. L ’Yi, and N. Gehlen- borg, “Enabling multimodal user interactions for genomics visualization creation,” in2023 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS), 2023, pp. 111–115

2023
[14]

GlyphCreator: towards example-based automatic generation of circular glyphs,

L. Ying, T. Tang, Y . Luo, L. Shen, X. Xie, L. Yu, and Y . Wu, “GlyphCreator: towards example-based automatic generation of circular glyphs,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph- ics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 400–410, 2021

2021
[15]

Chat2vis: generating data visualizations via natural language using chatgpt, codex and gpt-3 large language models,

P . Maddigan and T. Susnjak, “Chat2vis: generating data visualizations via natural language using chatgpt, codex and gpt-3 large language models,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 45181–45193, 2023

2023
[16]

Chartgpt: leveraging llms to generate charts from abstract natural language,

Y . Tian, W. Cui, D. Deng, X. Yi, Y . Y ang, H. Zhang, and Y . Wu, “Chartgpt: leveraging llms to generate charts from abstract natural language,”IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024

2024
[17]

LIDA: a tool for automatic generation of grammar-agnostic visualizations and infograph- ics using large language models,

V. Dibia, “LIDA: a tool for automatic generation of grammar-agnostic visualizations and infograph- ics using large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02927, 2023

2023 arXiv
[18]

A comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from a human cancer genome,

E. D. Pleasance, R. K. Cheetham, P . J. Stephens, D. J. McBride, S. J. Humphray, C. D. Greenman, I. Varela, M.-L. Lin, G. R. Ordóñez, G. R. Bignell et al., “A comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from a human cancer genome,”Nature, vol. 463, no. 7278, pp. 191–196, 2010

2010
[19]

Should I make it round? Suitability of circular and linear layouts for comparative tasks with matrix and connective data,

E. Ståhlbom, J. Molin, A. Ynnerman, and C. Lund- ström, “Should I make it round? Suitability of circular and linear layouts for comparative tasks with matrix and connective data,” inComputer Graphics Forum, vol. 43, no. 3, 2024, p. e15102

2024
[20]

IntelliCircos: a data-driven and AI- powered authoring tool for Circos plots,

M. Gu, J. Zhu, Q. Wang, F . Wang, X. Wen, Y . Wang, and M. Zhu, “IntelliCircos: a data-driven and AI- powered authoring tool for Circos plots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24021, 2025. Chi Zhangis student at Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences at Beij...

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Circos: an information aesthetic for compar- ative genomics,

M. Krzywinski, J. Schein, I. Birol, J. Connors, R. Gascoyne, D. Horsman, S. J. Jones, and M. A. Marra, “Circos: an information aesthetic for compar- ative genomics,”Genome Research, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1639–1645, 2009

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Promises and pitfalls: using large language models to generate visualization items,

Y . Cui, W. G. Lily, Y . Ding, L. Harrison, F . Y ang, and M. Kay, “Promises and pitfalls: using large language models to generate visualization items,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Genome-wide analysis and expression profile of the bZIP gene family in poplar,

K. Zhao, S. Chen, W. Y ao, Z. Cheng, B. Zhou, and T. Jiang, “Genome-wide analysis and expression profile of the bZIP gene family in poplar,”BMC Plant Biology, vol. 21, pp. 1–16, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Antimicrobial resistance and population genomics of multidrug- resistantEscherichia coliin pig farms in mainland China,

Z. Peng, Z. Hu, Z. Li, X. Zhang, C. Jia, T. Li, M. Dai, C. Tan, Z. Xu, B. Wuet al., “Antimicrobial resistance and population genomics of multidrug- resistantEscherichia coliin pig farms in mainland China,”Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1116, 2022. 13 THEME ARTICLE

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Comprehensive genomic resources related to domestication and crop improvement traits in Lima bean,

T. Garcia, J. Duitama, S. S. Zullo, J. Gil, A. Ariani, S. Dohle, A. Palkovic, P . Skeen, C. I. Bermudez- Santana, D. G. Deboucket al., “Comprehensive genomic resources related to domestication and crop improvement traits in Lima bean,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 702, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Genome assembly of wild tea tree DASZ reveals pedigree and selection history of tea varieties,

W. Zhang, Y . Zhang, H. Qiu, Y . Guo, H. Wan, X. Zhang, F . Scossa, S. Alseekh, Q. Zhang, P . Wanget al., “Genome assembly of wild tea tree DASZ reveals pedigree and selection history of tea varieties,”Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3719, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

BioCircos. js: an interactive Circos JavaScript library for biological data visualization on web applications,

Y . Cui, X. Chen, H. Luo, Z. Fan, J. Luo, S. He, H. Yue, P . Zhang, and R. Chen, “BioCircos. js: an interactive Circos JavaScript library for biological data visualization on web applications,”Bioinfor- matics, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1740–1742, 2016

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Circular genome visualization and exploration using CGView,

P . Stothard and D. S. Wishart, “Circular genome visualization and exploration using CGView,”Bioin- formatics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 537–539, 2005

work page 2005