Meraculous2: fast accurate short-read assembly of large polymorphic genomes
Authors:
Jarrod A. Chapman,
Isaac Y. Ho,
Eugene Goltsman,
Daniel S. Rokhsar
Abstract:
We present Meraculous2, an update to the Meraculous short-read assembler that includes (1) handling of allelic variation using "bubble" structures within the de Bruijn graph, (2) improved gap closing, and (3) an improved scaffolding algorithm that produces more complete assemblies without compromising scaffolding accuracy. The speed and bandwidth efficiency of the new parallel implementation have…
▽ More
We present Meraculous2, an update to the Meraculous short-read assembler that includes (1) handling of allelic variation using "bubble" structures within the de Bruijn graph, (2) improved gap closing, and (3) an improved scaffolding algorithm that produces more complete assemblies without compromising scaffolding accuracy. The speed and bandwidth efficiency of the new parallel implementation have also been substantially improved, allowing the assembly of a human genome to be accomplished in 24 hours on the JGI/NERSC Genepool system. To highlight the features of Meraculous2 we present here the assembly of the diploid human genome NA12878, and compare it with previously published assemblies of the same data using other algorithms. The Meraculous2 assemblies are shown to have better completeness, contiguity, and accuracy than other published assemblies for these data. Practical considerations including pre-assembly analyses of polymorphism and repetitiveness are described.
△ Less
Submitted 7 November, 2017; v1 submitted 2 August, 2016;
originally announced August 2016.
Assemblathon 2: evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species
Authors:
Keith R. Bradnam,
Joseph N. Fass,
Anton Alexandrov,
Paul Baranay,
Michael Bechner,
İnanç Birol,
Sébastien Boisvert,
Jarrod A. Chapman,
Guillaume Chapuis,
Rayan Chikhi,
Hamidreza Chitsaz,
Wen-Chi Chou,
Jacques Corbeil,
Cristian Del Fabbro,
T. Roderick Docking,
Richard Durbin,
Dent Earl,
Scott Emrich,
Pavel Fedotov,
Nuno A. Fonseca,
Ganeshkumar Ganapathy,
Richard A. Gibbs,
Sante Gnerre,
Élénie Godzaridis,
Steve Goldstein
, et al. (66 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
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…
▽ More
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, regulatory sequences, 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.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2013; v1 submitted 23 January, 2013;
originally announced January 2013.
