2015
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv697
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

MetaQUAST: evaluation of metagenome assemblies

Abstract: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
391
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 516 publications
(426 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
391
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Quality trimmed forward and reverse sequences were merged and assembled into contigs using SPAdes 3.7.0 (Nurk et al, 2013) with the "-meta" option. The number of contigs, contig length, GC content, N50, and L50 assembly statistics were calculated with metaQUAST (Mikheenko et al, 2016;Supplementary Table 2). Contigs ≥ 500 bp were organized into genome bins based on tetranucleotide frequency and sequence coverage using MaxBin 2.0 .…”
Section: Metagenomic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quality trimmed forward and reverse sequences were merged and assembled into contigs using SPAdes 3.7.0 (Nurk et al, 2013) with the "-meta" option. The number of contigs, contig length, GC content, N50, and L50 assembly statistics were calculated with metaQUAST (Mikheenko et al, 2016;Supplementary Table 2). Contigs ≥ 500 bp were organized into genome bins based on tetranucleotide frequency and sequence coverage using MaxBin 2.0 .…”
Section: Metagenomic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Benchmarking various computational tools in genomics would not be possible without the development of specialized quality assessment tools aimed at various applications. For example, benchmarking of assembly tools would not be possible without the development of such tools for evaluating genomics (QUAST in (30)), metagenomics ( meta QUAST in (31)), and transcriptomics ( rna QUAST in (32)) assemblies. Similarly to other areas of genomics, developing a benchmarking framework for repertoire reconstructions is a pre-requisite for objective evaluation of the state-of-art immunoinformatics algorithms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contigs from the IMP-based iterative co-assembly undergo quality assessment as well as taxonomic annotation [54] followed by gene prediction and functional annotation [55] (Fig. 1 and section “Annotation and assembly quality assessment”).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assemblies were assessed based on contiguity (N50 length), data usage (MG and MT reads mapped), and output volume (number of contigs above 1 kb and number of genes; Additional file 2: Table S5). Only the SM dataset allowed for ground truth-based assessment by means of aligning the generated de novo assembly contigs to the original 73 bacterial genomes used to simulate the data set (section “Simulated coupled metagenomic and metatranscriptomic dataset”) [12, 54]. This allowed the comparison of two additional quality metrics, i.e., the recovered genome fraction and the composite performance metric (CPM) proposed by Deng et al [62].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation