Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38833287›Full record

ArticleMicrobial genomics2024

How low can you go? Short-read polishing of Oxford Nanopore bacterial genome assemblies.

George Bouras, Louise M Judd, Robert A Edwards, Sarah Vreugde, Timothy P Stinear, Ryan R Wick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

95 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Gut microbes · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. The Oxytetracycline ProducerInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Complete genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Draft genome ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Complete genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  14. Complete genome sequences ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  15. Sequencing the genome ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Complete genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  20. Complete genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

George BourasAdelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Louise M JuddDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
Robert A EdwardsFlinders Accelerator for Microbiome Exploration, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Sarah VreugdeAdelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Timothy P StinearDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
Ryan R WickDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Computational and Experimental Resources for Virome Analysis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (CERVAID)RC2DK116713 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI WANG, DAVID · 2019 to 2023
$8.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS RC2 DK116713
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is now possible to assemble near-perfect bacterial genomes using Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) long reads, but short-read polishing is usually required for perfection. However, the effect of short-read depth on polishing performance is not well understood. Here, we introduce Pypolca (with default and careful parameters) and Polypolish v0.6.0 (with a new careful parameter). We then show that: (1) all polishers other than Pypolca-careful, Polypolish-default and Polypolish-careful commonly introduce false-positive errors at low read depth; (2) most of the benefit of short-read polishing occurs by 25× depth; (3) Polypolish-careful almost never introduces false-positive errors at any depth; and (4) Pypolca-careful is the single most effective polisher. Overall, we recommend the following polishing strategies: Polypolish-careful alone when depth is very low (<5×), Polypolish-careful and Pypolca-careful when depth is low (5-25×), and Polypolish-default and Pypolca-careful when depth is sufficient (>25×).

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialBacteriaGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNanoporesNanopore SequencingSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareassembly polishingbacterial genome assemblygenome polishingOxford nanopore sequencing

Identifiers

PMID38833287
PMCPMC11261834

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.