ArticleBMC research notes2013
De novo likelihood-based measures for comparing genome assemblies.
Article in BMC research notes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- ScatTR: Estimating the Size of Long Tandem Repeat Expansions from Short-Reads.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Theoretical Analysis of Sequencing Bioinformatics Algorithms and Beyond.Communications of the ACM · 2023Article
- High contiguity de novo genome assembly and DNA modification analyses for the fungus fly, Sciara coprophila, using single-molecule sequencing.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- TandemTools: mapping long reads and assessing/improving assembly quality in extra-long tandem repeats.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Lateral Gene Transfer Shapes Diversity ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
- Metagenomic assembly through the lens of validation: recent advances in assessing and improving the quality of genomes assembled from metagenomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Versatile genome assembly evaluation with QUAST-LG.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- UJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2017Article
- Comparative scaffolding and gap filling of ancient bacterial genomes applied to two ancientMicrobial genomics · 2017Article
- Article
- Metagenomic Assembly: Overview, Challenges and Applications.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2016Review
- OPERA-LG: efficient and exact scaffolding of large, repeat-rich eukaryotic genomes with performance guarantees.Genome biology · 2016Article
- The A, C, G, and T of Genome Assembly.BioMed research international · 2016Review
- SuRankCo: supervised ranking of contigs in de novo assemblies.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- GAML: genome assembly by maximum likelihood.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2015Article
- Whole-genome comparative analysis of virulence genes unveils similarities and differences between endophytes and other symbiotic bacteria.Frontiers in microbiology · 2015Article
- The Genome 10K Project: a way forward.Annual review of animal biosciences · 2015Review
- Article
- Automated ensemble assembly and validation of microbial genomes.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe current revolution in genomics has been made possible by software tools called genome assemblers, which stitch together DNA fragments "read" by sequencing machines into complete or nearly complete genome sequences. Despite decades of research in this field and the development of dozens of genome assemblers, assessing and comparing the quality of assembled genome sequences still relies on the availability of independently determined standards, such as manually curated genome sequences, or independently produced mapping data. These "gold standards" can be expensive to produce and may only cover a small fraction of the genome, which limits their applicability to newly generated genome sequences. Here we introduce a de novo probabilistic measure of assembly quality which allows for an objective comparison of multiple assemblies generated from the same set of reads. We define the quality of a sequence produced by an assembler as the conditional probability of observing the sequenced reads from the assembled sequence. A key property of our metric is that the true genome sequence maximizes the score, unlike other commonly used metrics.
resultsWe demonstrate that our de novo score can be computed quickly and accurately in a practical setting even for large datasets, by estimating the score from a relatively small sample of the reads. To demonstrate the benefits of our score, we measure the quality of the assemblies generated in the GAGE and Assemblathon 1 assembly "bake-offs" with our metric. Even without knowledge of the true reference sequence, our de novo metric closely matches the reference-based evaluation metrics used in the studies and outperforms other de novo metrics traditionally used to measure assembly quality (such as N50). Finally, we highlight the application of our score to optimize assembly parameters used in genome assemblers, which enables better assemblies to be produced, even without prior knowledge of the genome being assembled.
conclusionLikelihood-based measures, such as ours proposed here, will become the new standard for de novo assembly evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.