4.7 Article

Improving de novo Assembly Based on Read Classification

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TCBB.2018.2861380

关键词

Sequential analysis; Bioinformatics; Genomics; Histograms; Libraries; Pipelines; Sequencing bias; sequencing errors; repetitive regions; k-mers classification; reads classification; de novo assembly

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61732009, 61622213, 61772552, 61772557]
  2. 111 Project [B18059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to sequencing bias, sequencing error, and repeat problems, the genome assemblies usually contain misarrangements and gaps. When tackling these problems, current assemblers commonly consider the read libraries as a whole and adopt the same strategy to deal with them. However, if we can divide reads into different categories and take different assembly strategies for different read categories, we expect to reduce the mutual effects on problems in genome assembly and facilitate to produce satisfactory assemblies. In this paper, we present a new pipeline for genome assembly based on read classification (ARC). ARC classifies reads into three categories according to the frequencies of k-mers they contain. The three categories refer to (1) low depth reads, which contain a certain low frequency k-mers and are often caused by sequencing errors or bias; (2) high depth reads, which contain a certain high frequency k-mers and usually come from repetitive regions; and (3) normal depth reads, which are the rest of reads. After read classification, an existing assembler is used to assemble different read categories separately, which is beneficial to resolve problems in the genome assembly. ARC adopts loose assembly parameters for low depth reads, and strict assembly parameters for normal depth and high depth reads. We test ARC using five datasets. The experimental results show that, assemblers combining with ARC can generate better assemblies in terms of NA50, NGA50, and genome fraction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据