Comparison of long-read sequencing technologies in the hybrid assembly of complex bacterial genomes
Nicola De Maio,
Liam P. Shaw,
Sarah J Hoosdally,
Derrick W Crook,
Timothy E. A. Peto,
Anna E Sheppard,
Mark J. Bailey,
Daniel S. Read,
Muna F. Anjum,
A Sarah Walker,
Nicole B Stoesser,
on behalf of the REHAB consortium
Posted 26 Jan 2019
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/530824 (published DOI: 10.1099/mgen.0.000294)
Posted 26 Jan 2019
Illumina sequencing allows rapid, cheap and accurate whole genome bacterial analyses, but short reads (<300 bp) do not usually enable complete genome assembly. Long read sequencing greatly assists with resolving complex bacterial genomes, particularly when combined with short-read Illumina data (hybrid assembly); however, it is not clear how different long-read sequencing methods impact on assembly accuracy. Relative automation of the assembly process is also crucial to facilitating high-throughput complete bacterial genome reconstruction, avoiding multiple bespoke filtering and data manipulation steps. In this study, we compared hybrid assemblies for 20 bacterial isolates, including two reference strains, using Illumina sequencing and long reads from either Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) or from SMRT Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) sequencing platforms. We chose isolates from the Enterobacteriaceae family, as these frequently have highly plastic, repetitive genetic structures and complete genome reconstruction for these species is relevant for a precise understanding of the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance. We de novo assembled genomes using the hybrid assembler Unicycler and compared different read processing strategies. Both strategies facilitate high-quality genome reconstruction. Combining ONT and Illumina reads fully resolved most genomes without additional manual steps, and at a lower cost per isolate in our setting. Automated hybrid assembly is a powerful tool for complete and accurate bacterial genome assembly.
- Downloaded 8,558 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 1,263
- In bioinformatics: 66
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 23,954
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 14,568
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!