PreprintCited by 103Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGut microbiota and healthBacteriophages and microbial interactions

Hi-C deconvolution of a human gut microbiome yields high-quality draft genomes and reveals plasmid-genome interactions

Open access
Press, Maximilian O., Wiser, Andrew H., Kronenberg, Zev N., Langford, Kyle W., Shakya, Migun, Lo, Chien-Chi, Mueller, Kathryn A., Sullivan, Shawn T. +2 more·2017·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

The assembly of high-quality genomes from mixed microbial samples is a long-standing challenge in genomics and metagenomics. Here, we describe the application of ProxiMeta, a Hi-C-based metagenomic deconvolution method, to deconvolve a human fecal metagenome. This method uses the intra-cellular proximity signal captured by Hi-C as a direct indicator of which sequences originated in the same cell, enabling culture-free de novo deconvolution of mixed genomes without any reliance on a priori information. We show that ProxiMeta deconvolution provides results of markedly high accuracy and sensitivity, yielding 50 near-complete microbial genomes (many of which are novel) from a single fecal sample, out of 252 total genome clusters. ProxiMeta outperforms traditional contig binning at high-quality genome reconstruction. ProxiMeta shows particularly good performance in constructing high-quality genomes for diverse but poorly-characterized members of the human gut. We further use ProxiMeta to reconstruct genome plasmid content and sharing of plasmids among genomes—tasks that traditional binning methods usually fail to accomplish. Our findings suggest that Hi-C-based deconvolution can be useful to a variety of applications in genomics and metagenomics.

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 · 10.1101/198713

Cites

47 of 47 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
Press, M. O., Wiser, A. H., Kronenberg, Z. N., Langford, K. W., Shakya, M., Lo, C.-C., Mueller, K. A., Sullivan, S. T., Chain, P. S. G., & Liachko, I.
Affiliations
Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2017-10-05
OpenAlex
W2767898240
Cited by
103
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Bacteriophages and microbial interactions
Keywords
human gut microbiome, fecal metagenome, draft genome assembly, plasmid sharing, contig binning

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