4.7 Article

Genome assembly quality: Assessment and improvement using the neutral indel model

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 675-684

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.096966.109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U137761446, G0501331] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0501331, MC_U137761446] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe a statistical and comparative-genomic approach for quantifying error rates of genome sequence assemblies. The method exploits not substitutions but the pattern of insertions and deletions (indels) in genome-scale alignments for closely related species. Using two-or three-way alignments, the approach estimates the amount of aligned sequence containing clusters of nucleotides that were wrongly inserted or deleted during sequencing or assembly. Thus, the method is well-suited to assessing fine-scale sequence quality within single assemblies, between different assemblies of a single set of reads, and between genome assemblies for different species. When applying this approach to four primate genome assemblies, we found that average gap error rates per base varied considerably, by up to sixfold. As expected, bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences contained lower, but still substantial, predicted numbers of errors, arguing for caution in regarding BACs as the epitome of genome fidelity. We then mapped short reads, at approximately 10-fold statistical coverage, from a Bornean orangutan onto the Sumatran orangutan genome assembly originally constructed from capillary reads. This resulted in a reduced gap error rate and a separation of error-prone from high-fidelity sequence. Over 5000 predicted indel errors in protein-coding sequence were corrected in a hybrid assembly. Our approach contributes a new fine-scale quality metric for assemblies that should facilitate development of improved genome sequencing and assembly strategies.

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