Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32988404›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2020

A systematic comparison of chloroplast genome assembly tools.

Jan A Freudenthal, Simon Pfaff, Niklas Terhoeven, Arthur Korte, Markus J Ankenbrand, Frank Förster

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jan A FreudenthalCenter for Computational and Theoretical Biology, University of Würzburg, Campus Hubland Nord, Würzburg, 97074, Germany.
Simon PfaffCenter for Computational and Theoretical Biology, University of Würzburg, Campus Hubland Nord, Würzburg, 97074, Germany.
Niklas TerhoevenCenter for Computational and Theoretical Biology, University of Würzburg, Campus Hubland Nord, Würzburg, 97074, Germany.
Arthur KorteCenter for Computational and Theoretical Biology, University of Würzburg, Campus Hubland Nord, Würzburg, 97074, Germany.
Markus J AnkenbrandCenter for Computational and Theoretical Biology, University of Würzburg, Campus Hubland Nord, Würzburg, 97074, Germany.
Frank FörsterCenter for Computational and Theoretical Biology, University of Würzburg, Campus Hubland Nord, Würzburg, 97074, Germany. frank.foerster@computational.bio.uni-giessen.de.
University of Würzburg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChloroplasts are intracellular organelles that enable plants to conduct photosynthesis. They arose through the symbiotic integration of a prokaryotic cell into an eukaryotic host cell and still contain their own genomes with distinct genomic information. Plastid genomes accommodate essential genes and are regularly utilized in biotechnology or phylogenetics. Different assemblers that are able to assess the plastid genome have been developed. These assemblers often use data of whole genome sequencing experiments, which usually contain reads from the complete chloroplast genome.

resultsThe performance of different assembly tools has never been systematically compared. Here, we present a benchmark of seven chloroplast assembly tools, capable of succeeding in more than 60% of known real data sets. Our results show significant differences between the tested assemblers in terms of generating whole chloroplast genome sequences and computational requirements. The examination of 105 data sets from species with unknown plastid genomes leads to the assembly of 20 novel chloroplast genomes.

conclusionsWe create docker images for each tested tool that are freely available for the scientific community and ensure reproducibility of the analyses. These containers allow the analysis and screening of data sets for chloroplast genomes using standard computational infrastructure. Thus, large scale screening for chloroplasts within genomic sequencing data is feasible.

Indexed as

Genome, ChloroplastGenomicsAssemblyBenchmarkChloroplastGenomeSoftware

Identifiers

PMID32988404
PMCPMC7520963
OpenAlexW3091292540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.