Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29617724›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2019

Nanopore sequencing technology and tools for genome assembly: computational analysis of the current state, bottlenecks and future directions.

Damla Senol Cali, Jeremie S Kim, Saugata Ghose, Can Alkan, Onur Mutlu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing 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

101 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Nanopore Sequencing for Chikungunya Virus: Principles and Application.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Complete genome analysis ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. HalotolerantRSC advances · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Characterizing the epidemiology ofEmerging microbes & infections · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Complete genome of theMicrobiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Benchmarking of bioinformatics tools for the hybridComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Damla Senol CaliDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jeremie S KimDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Saugata GhoseDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Can AlkanDepartment of Computer Engineering, Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey.
Onur MutluDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

Novel algorithms and hardware designs for ultra-fast next-gen sequence analysisR01HG006004 · NHGRI · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI MUTLU, ONUR · 2011 to 2014
$1.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanopore sequencing technology has the potential to render other sequencing technologies obsolete with its ability to generate long reads and provide portability. However, high error rates of the technology pose a challenge while generating accurate genome assemblies. The tools used for nanopore sequence analysis are of critical importance, as they should overcome the high error rates of the technology. Our goal in this work is to comprehensively analyze current publicly available tools for nanopore sequence analysis to understand their advantages, disadvantages and performance bottlenecks. It is important to understand where the current tools do not perform well to develop better tools. To this end, we (1) analyze the multiple steps and the associated tools in the genome assembly pipeline using nanopore sequence data, and (2) provide guidelines for determining the appropriate tools for each step. Based on our analyses, we make four key observations: (1) the choice of the tool for basecalling plays a critical role in overcoming the high error rates of nanopore sequencing technology. (2) Read-to-read overlap finding tools, GraphMap and Minimap, perform similarly in terms of accuracy. However, Minimap has a lower memory usage, and it is faster than GraphMap. (3) There is a trade-off between accuracy and performance when deciding on the appropriate tool for the assembly step. The fast but less accurate assembler Miniasm can be used for quick initial assembly, and further polishing can be applied on top of it to increase the accuracy, which leads to faster overall assembly. (4) The state-of-the-art polishing tool, Racon, generates high-quality consensus sequences while providing a significant speedup over another polishing tool, Nanopolish. We analyze various combinations of different tools and expose the trade-offs between accuracy, performance, memory usage and scalability. We conclude that our observations can guide researchers and practitioners in making conscious and effective choices for each step of the genome assembly pipeline using nanopore sequence data. Also, with the help of bottlenecks we have found, developers can improve the current tools or build new ones that are both accurate and fast, to overcome the high error rates of the nanopore sequencing technology.

Indexed as

AnimalsChromosome MappingComputational BiologyEscherichia coliGenome, BacterialGenomicsHumansNanopore SequencingSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareassemblygenome analysisgenome sequencingmappingnanopore sequencing

Identifiers

PMID29617724
PMCPMC6781587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.