Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30860572›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2020

Assessment of metagenomic assemblers based on hybrid reads of real and simulated metagenomic sequences.

Ziye Wang, Ying Wang, Jed A Fuhrman, Fengzhu Sun, Shanfeng Zhu

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. A roadmap for metagenomic enzyme discovery.Natural product reports · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ziye WangSchool of Mathematical Sciences and the Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ying WangDepartment of Automation, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Jed A FuhrmanDepartment of Biological Sciences and Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Fengzhu SunDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Shanfeng ZhuShanghai Key Lab of Intelligent Information Processing, the School of Computer Science and the Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

Computational Studies of Virus-host Interactions Using Metagenomics Data and ApplicationsR01GM120624 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI AHLGREN, NATHAN, SUN, FENGZHU · 2017 to 2020
$1.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM120624
6 · The paper itself

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

MetagenomicsAlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatasets as TopicHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMicrobiotaassemblymetagenomicsnext-generation sequencingperformance comparison

Identifiers

PMID30860572
PMCPMC7299307

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.