Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Assemblathon 2: Evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: GigaScience, ISSN 2047-217X, E-ISSN 2047-217X, Vol. 2, no 1, 10Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The process of generating raw genome sequence data continues to become cheaper, faster, and more accurate. However, assembly of such data into high-quality, finished genome sequences remains challenging. Many genome assembly tools are available, but they differ greatly in terms of their performance (speed, scalability, hardware requirements, acceptance of newer read technologies) and in their final output (composition of assembled sequence). More importantly, it remains largely unclear how to best assess the quality of assembled genome sequences. The Assemblathon competitions are intended to assess current state-of-the-art methods in genome assembly. Results: In Assemblathon 2, we provided a variety of sequence data to be assembled for three vertebrate species (a bird, a fish, and snake). This resulted in a total of 43 submitted assemblies from 21 participating teams. We evaluated these assemblies using a combination of optical map data, Fosmid sequences, and several statistical methods. From over 100 different metrics, we chose ten key measures by which to assess the overall quality of the assemblies. Conclusions: Many current genome assemblers produced useful assemblies, containing a significant representation of their genes and overall genome structure. However, the high degree of variability between the entries suggests that there is still much room for improvement in the field of genome assembly and that approaches which work well in assembling the genome of one species may not necessarily work well for another.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2013. Vol. 2, no 1, 10
Keyword [en]
Assessment, COMPASS, Genome assembly, Heterozygosity, N50, Scaffolds, accuracy, Article, bird, calculation, fish, fosmid, genome analysis, genome size, mathematical analysis, next generation sequencing, nonhuman, parsimony analysis, prediction, priority journal, snake, validity, vertebrate
National Category
Biological Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-201898DOI: 10.1186/2047-217X-2-10ISI: 000324068500001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84991528460OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-201898DiVA: diva2:1079178
Note

QC 20170307

Available from: 2017-03-07 Created: 2017-03-07 Last updated: 2017-03-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Vezzi, F.
By organisation
Science for Life Laboratory, SciLifeLab
In the same journal
GigaScience
Biological Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 2 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf