ArticleBMC genomics2019
dnAQET: a framework to compute a consolidated metric for benchmarking quality of de novo assemblies.
Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation of and associations with the depth and evenness of sequencing coverage in archived plastid genomes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Variation of and associations with the depth and evenness of sequencing coverage in archived plastid genomes.Research square · 2025Article
- Genome Assembly, Polishing, and Analysis of the Chytrid Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate de novo genome assembly has become reality with the advancements in sequencing technology. With the ever-increasing number of de novo genome assembly tools, assessing the quality of assemblies has become of great importance in genome research. Although many quality metrics have been proposed and software tools for calculating those metrics have been developed, the existing tools do not produce a unified measure to reflect the overall quality of an assembly.
resultsTo address this issue, we developed the de novo Assembly Quality Evaluation Tool (dnAQET) that generates a unified metric for benchmarking the quality assessment of assemblies. Our framework first calculates individual quality scores for the scaffolds/contigs of an assembly by aligning them to a reference genome. Next, it computes a quality score for the assembly using its overall reference genome coverage, the quality score distribution of its scaffolds and the redundancy identified in it. Using synthetic assemblies randomly generated from the latest human genome build, various builds of the reference genomes for five organisms and six de novo assemblies for sample NA24385, we tested dnAQET to assess its capability for benchmarking quality evaluation of genome assemblies. For synthetic data, our quality score increased with decreasing number of misassemblies and redundancy and increasing average contig length and coverage, as expected. For genome builds, dnAQET quality score calculated for a more recent reference genome was better than the score for an older version. To compare with some of the most frequently used measures, 13 other quality measures were calculated. The quality score from dnAQET was found to be better than all other measures in terms of consistency with the known quality of the reference genomes, indicating that dnAQET is reliable for benchmarking quality assessment of de novo genome assemblies.
conclusionsThe dnAQET is a scalable framework designed to evaluate a de novo genome assembly based on the aggregated quality of its scaffolds (or contigs). Our results demonstrated that dnAQET quality score is reliable for benchmarking quality assessment of genome assemblies. The dnQAET can help researchers to identify the most suitable assembly tools and to select high quality assemblies generated.
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.