4.6 Article

Inclusion of Oxford Nanopore long reads improves all microbial and viral metagenome-assembled genomes from a complex aquifer system

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 4000-4013

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.15186

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. Free State of Thuringia [41-5507-2016]
  3. Leibniz Research Cluster InfectoOptics [SAS-2015-HKI-LWC]
  4. Excellence Cluster Balance of the Microverse - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [EXC 2051/1]
  5. Joachim Herz Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assembling microbial and viral genomes from metagenomes is a powerful and appealing method to understand structure-function relationships in complex environments. To compare the recovery of genomes from microorganisms and their viruses from groundwater, we generated shotgun metagenomes with Illumina sequencing accompanied by long reads derived from the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing platform. Assembly and metagenome-assembled genome (MAG) metrics for both microbes and viruses were determined from an Illumina-only assembly, ONT-only assembly, and a hybrid assembly approach. The hybrid approach recovered 2x more mid to high-quality MAGs compared to the Illumina-only approach and 4x more than the ONT-only approach. A similar number of viral genomes were reconstructed using the hybrid and ONT methods, and both recovered nearly fourfold more viral genomes than the Illumina-only approach. While yielding fewer MAGs, the ONT-only approach generated MAGs with a high probability of containing rRNA genes, 3x higher than either of the other methods. Of the shared MAGs recovered from each method, the ONT-only approach generated the longest and least fragmented MAGs, while the hybrid approach yielded the most complete. This work provides quantitative data to inform a cost-benefit analysis of the decision to supplement shotgun metagenomic projects with long reads towards the goal of recovering genomes from environmentally abundant groups.

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

4.6
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