Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38451230›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2024

A comparison of short-read, HiFi long-read, and hybrid strategies for genome-resolved metagenomics.

Raphael Eisenhofer, Joseph Nesme, Luisa Santos-Bay, Adam Koziol, Søren Johannes Sørensen, Antton Alberdi, Ostaizka Aizpurua

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Computational Metagenomics: State of the Art.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Long and Accurate: How HiFi Sequencing is Transforming Genomics.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2025
    Review
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Raphael EisenhoferCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3843-0749
Joseph NesmeSection of Microbiology, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Luisa Santos-BayCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Adam KoziolCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren Johannes SørensenSection of Microbiology, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6227-9906
Antton AlberdiCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2875-6446
Ostaizka AizpuruaCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8053-3672
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Danish National Research Foundation award DNRF143The Carlsberg Foundation CF20-0460
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shotgun metagenomics enables the reconstruction of complex microbial communities at a high level of detail. Such an approach can be conducted using both short-read and long-read sequencing data, as well as a combination of both. To assess the pros and cons of these different approaches, we used 22 fecal DNA extracts collected weekly for 11 weeks from two respective lab mice to study seven performance metrics over four combinations of sequencing depth and technology: (i) 20 Gbp of Illumina short-read data, (ii) 40 Gbp of short-read data, (iii) 20 Gbp of PacBio HiFi long-read data, and (iv) 40 Gbp of hybrid (20 Gbp of short-read +20 Gbp of long-read) data. No strategy was best for all metrics; instead, each one excelled across different metrics. The long-read approach yielded the best assembly statistics, with the highest N50 and lowest number of contigs. The 40 Gbp short-read approach yielded the highest number of refined bins. Finally, the hybrid approach yielded the longest assemblies and the highest mapping rate to the bacterial genomes. Our results suggest that while long-read sequencing significantly improves the quality of reconstructed bacterial genomes, it is more expensive and requires deeper sequencing than short-read approaches to recover a comparable amount of reconstructed genomes. The most optimal strategy is study-specific and depends on how researchers assess the trade-off between the quantity and quality of recovered genomes.IMPORTANCEMice are an important model organism for understanding the gut microbiome. When studying these gut microbiomes using DNA techniques, researchers can choose from technologies that use short or long DNA reads. In this study, we perform an extensive benchmark between short- and long-read DNA sequencing for studying mice gut microbiomes. We find that no one approach was best for all metrics and provide information that can help guide researchers in planning their experiments.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialMicrobiotaAnimalsDNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomicsMiceSequence Analysis, DNADNAgut microbiomelong readmetagenomicsmicemicrobiologymicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID38451230
PMCPMC10986573
OpenAlexW4392562494

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.