ArticlePloS one2014
GABenchToB: a genome assembly benchmark tuned on bacteria and benchtop sequencers.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- An inter-laboratory study characterizes the impact of bioinformatic approaches on genome-based cluster detection for foodborne bacterial pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- An overlooked phenomenon: complex interactions of potential error sources on the quality of bacterial de novo genome assemblies.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Correction: GABenchToB: A Genome Assembly Benchmark Tuned on Bacteria and Benchtop Sequencers.PloS one · 2024Article
- Refinement of microbiota analysis of specimens from patients with respiratory infections using next-generation sequencing.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Genetic and metabolic signatures of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica associated with animal sources at the pangenomic scale.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Article
- A robust and cost-effective approach to sequence and analyze complete genomes of small RNA viruses.Virology journal · 2017Article
- High Interlaboratory Reproducibility and Accuracy of Next-Generation-Sequencing-Based Bacterial Genotyping in a Ring Trial.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- A Primer on Infectious Disease Bacterial Genomics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016Review
- Investigating the mobilome in clinically important lineages of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- Completing bacterial genome assemblies: strategy and performance comparisons.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- An NGS Workflow Blueprint for DNA Sequencing Data and Its Application in Individualized Molecular Oncology.Cancer informatics · 2015Review
- Evaluation and Validation of Assembling Corrected PacBio Long Reads for Microbial Genome Completion via Hybrid Approaches.PloS one · 2015Article
- Correction: GABenchToB: a genome assembly benchmark tuned on bacteria and benchtop sequencers.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
De novo genome assembly is the process of reconstructing a complete genomic sequence from countless small sequencing reads. Due to the complexity of this task, numerous genome assemblers have been developed to cope with different requirements and the different kinds of data provided by sequencers within the fast evolving field of next-generation sequencing technologies. In particular, the recently introduced generation of benchtop sequencers, like Illumina's MiSeq and Ion Torrent's Personal Genome Machine (PGM), popularized the easy, fast, and cheap sequencing of bacterial organisms to a broad range of academic and clinical institutions. With a strong pragmatic focus, here, we give a novel insight into the line of assembly evaluation surveys as we benchmark popular de novo genome assemblers based on bacterial data generated by benchtop sequencers. Therefore, single-library assemblies were generated, assembled, and compared to each other by metrics describing assembly contiguity and accuracy, and also by practice-oriented criteria as for instance computing time. In addition, we extensively analyzed the effect of the depth of coverage on the genome assemblies within reasonable ranges and the k-mer optimization problem of de Bruijn Graph assemblers. Our results show that, although both MiSeq and PGM allow for good genome assemblies, they require different approaches. They not only pair with different assembler types, but also affect assemblies differently regarding the depth of coverage where oversampling can become problematic. Assemblies vary greatly with respect to contiguity and accuracy but also by the requirement on the computing power. Consequently, no assembler can be rated best for all preconditions. Instead, the given kind of data, the demands on assembly quality, and the available computing infrastructure determines which assembler suits best. The data sets, scripts and all additional information needed to replicate our results are freely available at ftp://ftp.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/pub/GABenchToB.
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.