Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41141382›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025

Benchmarking long-read assembly tools and preprocessing strategies for bacterial genomes: A case study on

Megha S Kumar, Manoj Bhat Krishna, K P Soman, John Stanley, Nader Pourmand, Prashanth Suravajhala, T G Satheesh Babu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Megha S KumarDepartment of Chemistry, Amrita School of Physical Sciences, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India.
Manoj Bhat KrishnaAmrita School of Artificial Intelligence, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India.
K P SomanAmrita School of Artificial Intelligence, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India.
John StanleyDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
Nader PourmandDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
Prashanth SuravajhalaDepartment of Biosciences, Manipal University Jaipur, Dehmi Kalan, Rajasthan, 303007, India.
T G Satheesh BabuDepartment of Chemistry, Amrita School of Physical Sciences, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome assembly is a crucial step in microbial genomics, significantly impacting downstream applications such as functional annotation and comparative genomics. While long-read sequencing technologies have improved genome reconstruction, the choice of assembler and preprocessing methods substantially influences assembly quality. Genome assembly is a crucial step in microbial genomics, significantly impacting downstream applications such as functional annotation and comparative genomics. While long-read sequencing technologies have improved genome reconstruction, the choice of assembler and preprocessing methods substantially influences assembly quality. Here, we benchmarked eleven long-read assemblers-Canu, Flye, HINGE, Miniasm, NECAT, NextDenovo, Raven, Shasta, SmartDenovo, wtdbg2 (Redbean), and Unicycler-using standardized computational resources. Assemblies were evaluated on runtime, contiguity (N50, total length, contig count), GC content, and completeness using Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO). Assemblers employing progressive error correction with consensus refinement, notably NextDenovo and NECAT, consistently generated near-complete, single-contig assemblies with low misassemblies and stable performance across preprocessing types. Flye offered a strong balance of accuracy and contiguity, although it was sensitive to corrected input. Canu achieved high accuracy but produced fragmented assemblies (3-5 contigs) and required the longest runtimes. Unicycler reliably produced circular assemblies but with slightly shorter contigs than Flye or NextDenovo. Ultrafast tools such as Miniasm and Shasta provided rapid draft assemblies, yet were highly dependent on preprocessing and required polishing to achieve completeness. HINGE and wtdbg2 underperformed due to structural instability and fragmentation. Preprocessing had a marked effect: filtering improved genome fraction and BUSCO completeness, trimming reduced low-quality artifacts, and correction benefited OLC-based assemblers but occasionally increased misassemblies in graph-based tools. Overall, assembler choice and preprocessing jointly determine accuracy, contiguity, and computational efficiency. These results provide a reproducible framework for selecting assembly pipelines in prokaryotic genomics, underscoring that no single assembler is universally optimal.

Indexed as

Bacterial genomeDe novo assemblyGenome assemblyLong-read sequencingWhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID41141382
PMCPMC12549375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.