Assemblathon 2: evaluating <i>de novo</i> methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species

Keith Bradnam(University of California, Davis), Joseph Fass(University of California, Davis), Anton Alexandrov(ITMO University), Paul Baranay(Yale University), Michael Bechner, İnanç Birol(BC Cancer Agency), Sébastien Boisvert(Université Laval), Jarrod Chapman(Joint Genome Institute), Guillaume Chapuis(École Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay), Rayan Chikhi(École Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay), Hamidreza Chitsaz(Wayne State University), Wen‐Chi Chou(University of Georgia), Jacques Corbeil(Université Laval), Cristian Del Fabbro(Istituto di Genomica Applicata), Roderick Docking(BC Cancer Agency), Richard Durbin(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Dent Earl(Howard Hughes Medical Institute), Scott Emrich(University of Notre Dame), Pavel Fedotov(ITMO University), Nuno A. Fonseca(European Bioinformatics Institute), Ganeshkumar Ganapathy(Duke Medical Center), Richard A. Gibbs(Baylor College of Medicine), Sante Gnerre(Broad Institute), Élénie Godzaridis(Université Laval), Steve Goldstein, Matthias Haimel(European Bioinformatics Institute), Giles Hall(Broad Institute), David Haussler(Howard Hughes Medical Institute), Joseph Hiatt(University of Washington), Isaac Ho(Joint Genome Institute), Jason T. Howard(Duke Medical Center), Martin Hunt(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Shaun D. Jackman(BC Cancer Agency), David B. Jaffe(Broad Institute), Erich D. Jarvis(Duke Medical Center), Huaiyang Jiang(Baylor College of Medicine), С. В. Казаков(ITMO University), Paul Kersey(European Bioinformatics Institute), Jacob O. Kitzman(University of Washington), James Knight(Enzo Life Sciences (United States)), Sergey Koren(University of Maryland, College Park), Tak‐Wah Lam(University of Hong Kong), Dominique Lavenier(École Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay), François Laviolette(Université Laval), Yingrui Li(BGI Group (China)), Zhenyu Li(BGI Group (China)), Binghang Liu(BGI Group (China)), Yue Liu(Baylor College of Medicine), Ruibang Luo(BGI Group (China)), Iain MacCallum(Broad Institute), Matthew D. MacManes(QB3), Nicolas Maillet(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Sergey Melnikov(ITMO University), Delphine Naquin(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Zemin Ning(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Thomas D. Otto(Howard Hughes Medical Institute), Benedict Paten(Howard Hughes Medical Institute), Octávio S. Paulo(University of Lisbon), Adam M. Phillippy(University of Maryland, College Park), Francisco Pina‐Martins(University of Lisbon), Michael Place, Dariusz Przybylski(Broad Institute), Xiang Qin(Baylor College of Medicine), Carson Qu(Baylor College of Medicine), Filipe J. Ribeiro(New York Genome Center), Stephen Richards(Baylor College of Medicine), Daniel S. Rokhsar(Joint Genome Institute), J. Graham Ruby(Howard Hughes Medical Institute), Simone Scalabrin(Istituto di Genomica Applicata), Michael C. Schatz(Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), David C. Schwartz, Alexey Sergushichev(ITMO University), Ted Sharpe(Broad Institute), Timothy I. Shaw(University of Georgia), Jay Shendure(University of Washington), Yujian Shi(BGI Group (China)), Jared T. Simpson(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Henry Song(Baylor College of Medicine), Fedor Tsarev(ITMO University), Francesco Vezzi(Science for Life Laboratory), Riccardo Vicedomini(University of Udine), Bruno Vieira(University of Lisbon), Jun Wang(BGI Group (China)), Kim C. Worley(Baylor College of Medicine), Shuangye Yin(Broad Institute), Siu Ming Yiu(University of Hong Kong), Jianying Yuan(BGI Group (China)), Guojie Zhang(BGI Group (China)), Hao Zhang(BGI Group (China)), Shiguo Zhou, Ian Korf(University of California, Davis)
GigaScience
July 22, 2013
Cited by 734Open Access
Full Text

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 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.


Related Papers