ArticleMicroorganisms2022
Accuracy and Completeness of Long Read Metagenomic Assemblies.
Article in Microorganisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision medicine in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: applications and prospects of third-generation sequencing technology.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Francisella tularensis Subspecies holarctica in Stranded Beluga Whales, Cook Inlet, Alaska, USA.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Long-read RNA sequencing reveals allele-specificGenome research · 2025Article
- Draft Genome data including functional annotation of an emerging fungal pathogenPhytoFrontiers · 2025Article
- Revealing the Existence of Diverse Strategies for Phosphorus Solubilization and Acquisition in Plant-Growth PromotingMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Impact of sample multiplexing on detection of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance genes in pig microbiomes using long-read sequencing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Long-read RNA sequencing reveals allele-specific NbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Whole genome sequencing in the palm of your hand: how to implement a MinION Galaxy-based workflow in a food safety laboratory for rapidFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Microbes influence the surrounding environment and contribute to human health. Metagenomics can be used as a tool to explore the interactions between microbes. Metagenomic assemblies built using long read nanopore data depend on the read level accuracy. The read level accuracy of nanopore sequencing has made dramatic improvements over the past several years. However, we do not know if the increased read level accuracy allows for faster assemblers to make as accurate metagenomic assemblies as slower assemblers. Here, we present the results of a benchmarking study comparing three commonly used long read assemblers, Flye, Raven, and Redbean. We used a prepared DNA standard of seven bacteria as our input community. We prepared a sequencing library using a VolTRAX V2 and sequenced using a MinION mk1b. We basecalled with Guppy v5.0.7 using the super-accuracy model. We found that increasing read depth benefited each of the assemblers, and nearly complete community member chromosomes were assembled with as little as 10× read depth. Polishing assemblies using Medaka had a predictable improvement in quality. We found Flye to be the most robust across taxa and was the most effective assembler for recovering plasmids. Based on Flye's consistency for chromosomes and increased effectiveness at assembling plasmids, we would recommend using Flye in future metagenomic studies.
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.