ArticleGigaScience2022
LMAS: evaluating metagenomic short de novo assembly methods through defined communities.
Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling soil microbial diversity through ultra-deep short-read metagenomic sequencing and co-assembly.iMeta · 2025Article
- Landscape of the metaplasmidome of deep-sea hydrothermal vents located at Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridges in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea: ecological insights from comparative analysis of plasmid identification tools.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2024Article
- Enhancing Clinical Utility: Utilization of International Standards and Guidelines for Metagenomic Sequencing in Infectious Disease Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Metagenomic assembly is the main bottleneck in the identification of mobile genetic elements.PeerJ · 2024Article
- LMAS: evaluating metagenomic short de novo assembly methods through defined communities.GigaScience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe de novo assembly of raw sequence data is key in metagenomic analysis. It allows recovering draft genomes from a pool of mixed raw reads, yielding longer sequences that offer contextual information and provide a more complete picture of the microbial community.
findingsTo better compare de novo assemblers for metagenomic analysis, LMAS (Last Metagenomic Assembler Standing) was developed as a flexible platform allowing users to evaluate assembler performance given known standard communities. Overall, in our test datasets, k-mer De Bruijn graph assemblers outperformed the alternative approaches but came with a greater computational cost. Furthermore, assemblers branded as metagenomic specific did not consistently outperform other genomic assemblers in metagenomic samples. Some assemblers still in use, such as ABySS, MetaHipmer2, minia, and VelvetOptimiser, perform relatively poorly and should be used with caution when assembling complex samples. Meaningful strain resolution at the single-nucleotide polymorphism level was not achieved, even by the best assemblers tested.
conclusionsThe choice of a de novo assembler depends on the computational resources available, the replicon of interest, and the major goals of the analysis. No single assembler appeared an ideal choice for short-read metagenomic prokaryote replicon assembly, each showing specific strengths. The choice of metagenomic assembler should be guided by user requirements and characteristics of the sample of interest, and LMAS provides an interactive evaluation platform for this purpose. LMAS is open source, and the workflow and its documentation are available at https://github.com/B-UMMI/LMAS and https://lmas.readthedocs.io/, respectively.
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.