Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32208422›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Can we use it? On the utility of de novo and reference-based assembly of Nanopore data for plant plastome sequencing.

Agnes Scheunert, Marco Dorfner, Thomas Lingl, Christoph Oberprieler

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Complete sequence of theMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The first complete chloroplast genome for the species-rich genusMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2024
    Article
  10. Plastid Genome Assembly Using Long-read data.Molecular ecology resources · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Chloroplast genomes of fourFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Agnes ScheunertEvolutionary and Systematic Botany Group, Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7188-8797
Marco DorfnerEvolutionary and Systematic Botany Group, Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Thomas LinglEvolutionary and Systematic Botany Group, Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Christoph OberprielerEvolutionary and Systematic Botany Group, Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The chloroplast genome harbors plenty of valuable information for phylogenetic research. Illumina short-read data is generally used for de novo assembly of whole plastomes. PacBio or Oxford Nanopore long reads are additionally employed in hybrid approaches to enable assembly across the highly similar inverted repeats of a chloroplast genome. Unlike for PacBio, plastome assemblies based solely on Nanopore reads are rarely found, due to their high error rate and non-random error profile. However, the actual quality decline connected to their use has rarely been quantified. Furthermore, no study has employed reference-based assembly using Nanopore reads, which is common with Illumina data. Using Leucanthemum Mill. as an example, we compared the sequence quality of seven chloroplast genome assemblies of the same species, using combinations of two sequencing platforms and three analysis pipelines. In addition, we assessed the factors which might influence Nanopore assembly quality during sequence generation and bioinformatic processing. The consensus sequence derived from de novo assembly of Nanopore data had a sequence identity of 99.59% compared to Illumina short-read de novo assembly. Most of the errors detected were indels (81.5%), and a large majority of them is part of homopolymer regions. The quality of reference-based assembly is heavily dependent upon the choice of a close-enough reference. When using a reference with 0.83% sequence divergence from the studied species, mapping of Nanopore reads results in a consensus comparable to that from Nanopore de novo assembly, and of only slightly inferior quality compared to a reference-based assembly with Illumina data. For optimal de novo assembly of Nanopore data, appropriate filtering of contaminants and chimeric sequences, as well as employing moderate read coverage, is essential. Based on these results, we conclude that Nanopore long reads are a suitable alternative to Illumina short reads in plastome phylogenomics. Few errors remain in the finalized assembly, which can be easily masked in phylogenetic analyses without loss in analytical accuracy. The easily applicable and cost-effective technology might warrant more attention by researchers dealing with plant chloroplast genomes.

Indexed as

Chromosome MappingGenome, ChloroplastHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNanoporesPhylogenyLeucanthemum

Identifiers

PMID32208422
PMCPMC7092973

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.