Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23965294›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2013

De novo likelihood-based measures for comparing genome assemblies.

Mohammadreza Ghodsi, Christopher M Hill, Irina Astrovskaya, Henry Lin, Dan D Sommer, Sergey Koren, Mihai Pop

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Lateral Gene Transfer Shapes Diversity ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Versatile genome assembly evaluation with QUAST-LG.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018
    Article
  8. UJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Metagenomic Assembly: Overview, Challenges and Applications.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2016
    Review
  12. Article
  13. The A, C, G, and T of Genome Assembly.BioMed research international · 2016
    Review
  14. Article
  15. GAML: genome assembly by maximum likelihood.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. The Genome 10K Project: a way forward.Annual review of animal biosciences · 2015
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mohammadreza GhodsiCenter for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA. mpop@umd.edu.
Christopher M Hill
Irina Astrovskaya
Henry Lin
Dan D Sommer
Sergey Koren
Mihai Pop

Funding

Algorithms and Software for the Assembly of Metagenomic DataR01AI100947 · NIAID · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI POP, MIHAI · 2013 to 2025
$7.4M
Assembly and analysis software for exploring the human microbiomeR01HG004885 · NHGRI · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI POP, MIHAI · 2008 to 2010
$888k
NHGRI NIH HHS R01-HG-004885NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI100947
6 · The paper itself

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

Genome, BacterialSoftwareAlgorithmsContig MappingGenomicsLikelihood FunctionsRhodobacter sphaeroidesSequence Analysis, DNAStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus epidermidis

Identifiers

PMID23965294
PMCPMC3765854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.