Cited by 3,031Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication

Open access
Olm, Matthew R, Brown, Christopher T, Brooks, Brandon, Banfield, Jillian F·2017·The ISME Journal

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The number of microbial genomes sequenced each year is expanding rapidly, in part due to genome-resolved metagenomic studies that routinely recover hundreds of draft-quality genomes. Rapid algorithms have been developed to comprehensively compare large genome sets, but they are not accurate with draft-quality genomes. Here we present dRep, a program that reduces the computational time for pairwise genome comparisons by sequentially applying a fast, inaccurate estimation of genome distance, and a slow, accurate measure of average nucleotide identity. dRep achieves a 28 × increase in speed with perfect recall and precision when benchmarked against previously developed algorithms. We demonstrate the use of dRep for genome recovery from time-series datasets. Each metagenome was assembled separately, and dRep was used to identify groups of essentially identical genomes and select the best genome from each replicate set. This resulted in recovery of significantly more and higher-quality genomes compared to the set recovered using co-assembly.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ismej.2017.126

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lee ST, Kahn SA, Delmont TO, Hubert NA, Morrison HG, Antonopoulos DA, et al. (2016). High-resolution tracking of microbial colonization in Fecal Microbiota Transplantation experiments via metagenome-assembled genomes. bioRxiv. e-pub ahead of print, doi: 10.1101/090993. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olm, M. R., Brown, C. T., Brooks, B., & Banfield, J. F.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Banfield, Jillian F
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2017-07-25
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
2864-2868
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2736920791
Cited by
3,031
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 641 · 2025: 663 · 2024: 587 · 2023: 399 · 2022: 289 · 2021: 248 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 2
FWCI
22.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The ISME Journal (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1106400)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (DGE 1106400, g-2012-10-05)
  • National Institutes of Health (DGE 1106400, 5r01ai092531-13)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01-AI092531)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
comparative genomics, average nucleotide identity, draft genome sequence, metagenome-assembled genomes, genome recovery, microbial genomes, genome clustering
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bacteria, Software, Genome, Bacterial, Metagenome, Metagenomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review