ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Evaluating long-read assemblers to assemble several aphididae genomes.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- T2TJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aphids are a speciose family of the Hemiptera compromising >5500 species. They have adapted to feed off multiple plant species and occur on every continent on Earth. Although economically devastating, very few aphid genomes have been sequenced and assembled, and those that have suffer low contiguity due to repeat-rich and AT-rich genomes. With third-generation sequencing becoming more affordable and approaching quality levels to that of second-generation sequencing, the ability to produce more contiguous aphid genome assemblies is becoming a reality. With a growing list of long-read assemblers becoming available, the choice of which assembly tool to use becomes more complicated. In this study, six recently released long-read assemblers (Canu, Flye, Hifiasm, Mecat2, Raven, and Wtdbg2) were evaluated on several quality and contiguity metrics after assembling four populations (or biotypes) of the same species (Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia) and two unrelated aphid species that have publicly available long-read sequences. All assemblers did not fare equally well between the different read sets, but, overall, the Hifiasm and Canu assemblers performed the best. Merging of the best assemblies for each read set was also performed using quickmerge, where, in some cases, it resulted in superior assemblies and, in others, introduced more errors. Ab initio gene calling between assemblies of the same read set also showed surprisingly less similarity than expected. Overall, the quality control pipeline followed during the assembly resulted in chromosome-level assemblies with minimal structural or quality artefacts.
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.