ArticleScientific reports2025
Benchmarking genome assemblers for four bacterial models based on contiguity, correctness, and completeness.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From contiguity to accuracy: Validation-centered perspectives on bacterial genome assembly.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Review
- Exploratory Insights on Epidemiology, Genomic Features and Pangenome Analysis of NDM-1-Positive Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Genomic and phenotypic characterization of Vibrio cholerae strain SU109: a genomic investigation of a shrimp-associated strain from Bangladesh.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Probiogenomics as a Computational Biotechnology Framework: Safety-Gated Genome Analytics for Candidate Probiotic Prioritization and Validation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
De novo genome assembly allows for the genome reconstruction of an organism without using a reference sequence. Assembly results depend on various sequencing technologies that generate data with differing fidelity, read lengths, and coverage levels, as well as on performance of a wide variety of algorithms. These attributes generate a diversity of assemblies for each single genome, which collectively defines the pan-assembly. In this study, we aimed to benchmark pan-assemblies of the prokaryotic models Brucella henselae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Xylella fastidiosa, using different attributes and their impact on metrics of the 3 C (contiguity, correctness, and completeness) criterion for selecting the best conditions for de novo genome assembly. Results showed that short-read assembly strategies presented higher accuracy with fewer errors (high correctness) and a high degree of completeness but lower contiguity due to fragmented assemblies. In contrast, long-read-based strategies showed high contiguity but lower completeness and accuracy. The hybrid strategy yielded the best overall results across all parameters by leveraging the strengths of both types of technology. Regarding assembly algorithms, Unicycler was the top assembler in 3 C metrics, using any of the short-read (compared to Megahit), long-read (compared to Canu), or hybrid strategies (compared to Wengan). Overall, the hybrid approach with Unicycler proved to be the best general approach for genome assembly of the four bacterial models. Finally, regarding coverage depth, increasing depth did not significantly affect assembly quality results if a minimum data level was maintained, indicating that high-quality assemblies can be achieved using moderate coverage levels. Jointly, the results of the pan-assembly provide working conditions for de novo genome assembly that can be applied to bacterial models of interest, guiding the selection of optimized experimental and bioinformatics conditions while reducing sequencing costs for generating high-quality sequences.
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.