ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2020
Assessment of metagenomic assemblers based on hybrid reads of real and simulated metagenomic sequences.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2020. 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 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Application of Fermented Fertilizer Attenuates the Accumulation of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Aquaculture Sediment.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Efficient De Novo Assembly and Recovery of Microbial Genomes from Complex Metagenomes Using a Reduced Set of k-mers.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2026Article
- 2Pipe starts with a question: matching you with the correct pipeline for MAG reconstruction.mSystems · 2026Review
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Deciphering the Structure and Genetic Basis of Adaptive Mechanism of Soil Microbial Communities in a Manganese Electrolysis Plant.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of shotgun metagenomics as a diagnostic tool for infectious gastroenteritis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Virseqimprover: an integrated pipeline for viral contig error correction, extension, and annotation.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Metagenomic assemblies tend to break around antibiotic resistance genes.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Benchmarking short-, long- and hybrid-read assemblers for metagenome sequencing of complex microbial communities.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2024Article
- Article
- Integrated meta-omics reveals the regulatory landscape involved in lipid metabolism between pig breeds.Microbiome · 2024Article
- Bioinformatics tools for the sequence complexity estimates.Biophysical reviews · 2023Review
- Multi-omics reveal microbial determinants impacting the treatment outcome of antidepressants in major depressive disorder.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Deep-Sea Sediments from the Southern Gulf of Mexico Harbor a Wide Diversity of PKS I Genes.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Introduction to the principles and methods underlying the recovery of metagenome-assembled genomes from metagenomic data.MicrobiologyOpen · 2022Review
- Measuring quality of DNA sequence data via degradation.PloS one · 2022Article
- A roadmap for metagenomic enzyme discovery.Natural product reports · 2021Review
- Increasing the power of interpretation for soil metaproteomics data.Microbiome · 2021Article
- Metagenomic approaches in microbial ecology: an update on whole-genome and marker gene sequencing analyses.Microbial genomics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In metagenomic studies of microbial communities, the short reads come from mixtures of genomes. Read assembly is usually an essential first step for the follow-up studies in metagenomic research. Understanding the power and limitations of various read assembly programs in practice is important for researchers to choose which programs to use in their investigations. Many studies evaluating different assembly programs used either simulated metagenomes or real metagenomes with unknown genome compositions. However, the simulated datasets may not reflect the real complexities of metagenomic samples and the estimated assembly accuracy could be misleading due to the unknown genomes in real metagenomes. Therefore, hybrid strategies are required to evaluate the various read assemblers for metagenomic studies. In this paper, we benchmark the metagenomic read assemblers by mixing reads from real metagenomic datasets with reads from known genomes and evaluating the integrity, contiguity and accuracy of the assembly using the reads from the known genomes. We selected four advanced metagenome assemblers, MEGAHIT, MetaSPAdes, IDBA-UD and Faucet, for evaluation. We showed the strengths and weaknesses of these assemblers in terms of integrity, contiguity and accuracy for different variables, including the genetic difference of the real genomes with the genome sequences in the real metagenomic datasets and the sequencing depth of the simulated datasets. Overall, MetaSPAdes performs best in terms of integrity and continuity at the species-level, followed by MEGAHIT. Faucet performs best in terms of accuracy at the cost of worst integrity and continuity, especially at low sequencing depth. MEGAHIT has the highest genome fractions at the strain-level and MetaSPAdes has the overall best performance at the strain-level. MEGAHIT is the most efficient in our experiments. Availability: The source code is available at https://github.com/ziyewang/MetaAssemblyEval.
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.