ArticleMicrobial genomics2025
High intra-laboratory reproducibility of nanopore sequencing in bacterial species underscores advances in its accuracy.
Article in Microbial genomics, 2025. 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.
- Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a Promising Technology for Precision Diagnostics in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Advancements and Emerging Trends in the Detection of Sweet Potato Diseases: A Comprehensive Review.ACS omega · 2026Review
- Nanopore long-read-only genome assembly of clinical Enterobacterales isolates is complete and accurate.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Conference report: The Third Bacterial Genome Sequencing Pan-European Network conference.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- Current status and prospects of nanopore sequencing technology in the detection of pathogenic microorganisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- The transformative impact of ultra-rapid nanopore sequencing in precision medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- An open-source nanopore-only sequencing workflow for analysis of clonal outbreaks delivers short-read level accuracy.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanopore sequencing is a third-generation technology known for its portability, real-time analysis and ability to generate long reads. It has great potential for use in clinical diagnostics, but thorough validation is required to address accuracy concerns and ensure reliable and reproducible results. In this study, we automated an open-source workflow (freely available at https://gitlab.com/FLI_Bioinfo/nanobacta) for the assembly of Oxford Nanopore sequencing data and used it to investigate the reproducibility of assembly results under consistent conditions. We used a benchmark dataset of five bacterial reference strains and generated eight technical sequencing replicates of the same DNA using the Ligation and Rapid Barcoding kits together with the Flongle and MinION flow cells. We assessed reproducibility by measuring discrepancies such as substitution and insertion/deletion errors, analysing plasmid recovery results and examining genetic markers and clustering information. We compared the results of genome assemblies with and without short-read polishing. Our results show an average reproducibility accuracy of 99.999955% for nanopore-only assemblies and 99.999996% when the short reads were used for polishing. The genomic analysis results were highly reproducible for the nanopore-only assemblies without short read in the following areas: identification of genetic markers for antimicrobial resistance and virulence, classical MLST, taxonomic classification, genome completeness and contamination analysis. Interestingly, the clustering information results from the core genome SNP and core genome MLST analyses were also highly reproducible for the nanopore-only assemblies, with pairwise differences of up to two allele differences in core genome MLST and two SNPs in core genome SNP across replicates. After polishing the assemblies with short reads, the pairwise differences for cgMLST were 0 and for cgSNP were 0-1 SNP across replicates. These results highlight the advances in sequencing accuracy of nanopore data without the use of short reads.
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.