Cited by 2,214Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFractal and DNA sequence analysis

BUSCO applications from quality assessments to gene prediction and phylogenomics

Open access
Waterhouse, Robert M, Seppey, Mathieu, Simão, Felipe A, Manni, Mosè, Ioannidis, Panagiotis, Klioutchnikov, Guennadi, Kriventseva, Evgenia V, Zdobnov, Evgeny M·2018·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Genomics promises comprehensive surveying of genomes and metagenomes, but rapidly changing technologies and expanding data volumes make evaluation of completeness a challenging task. Technical sequencing quality metrics can be complemented by quantifying completeness of genomic data sets in terms of the expected gene content of Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO, http://busco.ezlab.org). The latest software release implements a complete refactoring of the code to make it more flexible and extendable to facilitate high-throughput assessments. The original six lineage assessment data sets have been updated with improved species sampling, 34 new subsets have been built for vertebrates, arthropods, fungi, and prokaryotes that greatly enhance resolution, and data sets are now also available for nematodes, protists, and plants. Here, we present BUSCO v3 with example analyses that highlight the wide-ranging utility of BUSCO assessments, which extend beyond quality control of genomics data sets to applications in comparative genomics analyses, gene predictor training, metagenomics, and phylogenomics.

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 · 10.1093/molbev/msx319

Cites

31 of 31 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waterhouse, R. M., Seppey, M., Simão, F. A., Manni, M., Ioannidis, P., Klioutchnikov, G., Kriventseva, E. V., & Zdobnov, E. M.
Affiliations
University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Zdobnov, Evgeny M
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2017-12-06
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
543-548
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2951257985
Cited by
2,214
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 174 · 2024: 198 · 2023: 206 · 2022: 320 · 2021: 433 · 2020: 391 · 2019: 288 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 1
FWCI
87.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (PP00P3_170664)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (170664, 143936)
  • Université de Genève
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
Keywords
BUSCO, sequencing quality control, phylogenomics, comparative genomics, 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