ArticleMicrobiology (Reading, England)2024
Benchmarking short-, long- and hybrid-read assemblers for metagenome sequencing of complex microbial communities.
Article in Microbiology (Reading, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative comparison of fungal genome assembly strategies using short and long reads from simulated and empirical sequencing data.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- StrainMake: reproducible hybrid metagenomics with MAG recovery and strain-level resolution.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- 2Pipe starts with a question: matching you with the correct pipeline for MAG reconstruction.mSystems · 2026Review
- The hidden life ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Opportunities and Challenges of Multiomics for Discovery and Monitoring of Human Pathogens.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
- Article
- Global trends in the application of nanopore sequencing technology in the detection of infectious disease pathogens: a bibliometric analysis from 2014 to 2024.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metagenome community analyses, driven by the continued development in sequencing technology, is rapidly providing insights in many aspects of microbiology and becoming a cornerstone tool. Illumina, Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) and Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) are the leading technologies, each with their own advantages and drawbacks. Illumina provides accurate reads at a low cost, but their length is too short to close bacterial genomes. Long reads overcome this limitation, but these technologies produce reads with lower accuracy (ONT) or with lower throughput (PacBio high-fidelity reads). In a critical first analysis step, reads are assembled to reconstruct genomes or individual genes within the community. However, to date, the performance of existing assemblers has never been challenged with a complex mock metagenome. Here, we evaluate the performance of current assemblers that use short, long or both read types on a complex mock metagenome consisting of 227 bacterial strains with varying degrees of relatedness. We show that many of the current assemblers are not suited to handle such a complex metagenome. In addition, hybrid assemblies do not fulfil their potential. We conclude that ONT reads assembled with CANU and Illumina reads assembled with SPAdes offer the best value for reconstructing genomes and individual genes of complex metagenomes, 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.