4.7 Article

Completing bacterial genome assemblies: strategy and performance comparisons

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep08747

关键词

-

资金

  1. intramural funding of National Health Research Institutes [PH-103-PP-05]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology Grant, Taiwan [NSC103-2320-B-400-001]
  3. National Science Council, Taiwan (Taiwan Bioinformatics Institute Core Facility) [NSC102-2319-B-400-001]
  4. STFC [ST/I001212/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Determining the genomic sequences of microorganisms is the basis and prerequisite for understanding their biology and functional characterization. While the advent of low-cost, extremely high-throughput second-generation sequencing technologies and the parallel development of assembly algorithms have generated rapid and cost-effective genome assemblies, such assemblies are often unfinished, fragmented draft genomes as a result of short read lengths and long repeats present in multiple copies. Third-generation, PacBio sequencing technologies circumvented this problem by greatly increasing read length. Hybrid approaches including ALLPATHS-LG, PacBio corrected reads pipeline, SPAdes, and SSPACE-LongRead, and non-hybrid approaches-hierarchical genome-assembly process (HGAP) and PacBio corrected reads pipeline via self-correction-have therefore been proposed to utilize the PacBio long reads that can span many thousands of bases to facilitate the assembly of complete microbial genomes. However, standardized procedures that aim at evaluating and comparing these approaches are currently insufficient. To address the issue, we herein provide a comprehensive comparison by collecting datasets for the comparative assessment on the above-mentioned five assemblers. In addition to offering explicit and beneficial recommendations to practitioners, this study aims to aid in the design of a paradigm positioned to complete bacterial genome assembly.

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