The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GAGE: A critical evaluation of genome assemblies and assembly algorithms
Open accessAbstract
New sequencing technology has dramatically altered the landscape of whole-genome sequencing, allowing scientists to initiate numerous projects to decode the genomes of previously unsequenced organisms. The lowest-cost technology can generate deep coverage of most species, including mammals, in just a few days. The sequence data generated by one of these projects consist of millions or billions of short DNA sequences (reads) that range from 50 to 150 nt in length. These sequences must then be assembled de novo before most genome analyses can begin. Unfortunately, genome assembly remains a very difficult problem, made more difficult by shorter reads and unreliable long-range linking information. In this study, we evaluated several of the leading de novo assembly algorithms on four different short-read data sets, all generated by Illumina sequencers. Our results describe the relative performance of the different assemblers as well as other significant differences in assembly difficulty that appear to be inherent in the genomes themselves. Three overarching conclusions are apparent: first, that data quality, rather than the assembler itself, has a dramatic effect on the quality of an assembled genome; second, that the degree of contiguity of an assembly varies enormously among different assemblers and different genomes; and third, that the correctness of an assembly also varies widely and is not well correlated with statistics on contiguity. To enable others to replicate our results, all of our data and methods are freely available, as are all assemblers used in this study.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome.
Langmead, B., Trapnell, C., Pop, M., & Salzberg, S. L. (2009) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25 · Cited by 21,849
Self-citationThe sequence of the human genome
Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., Smith, H. O., Yandell, M., Evans, C. A., Holt, R. A., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1058040 · Cited by 13,909
Self-citationInitial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome
Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01262 · Cited by 7,187
Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes
Kurtz, S., Phillippy, A., Delcher, A. L., Smoot, M., Shumway, M., Antonescu, C., & Salzberg, S. L. (2004) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2004-5-2-r12 · Cited by 5,254
Self-citationDe novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing
Li, R., Zhu, H., Ruan, J., Qian, W., Fang, X., Shi, Z., Li, Y., Li, S., Shan, G., Kristiansen, K., et al. (2010) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.097261.109 · Cited by 2,926
Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog
members, B. S. P., Lindblad-Toh, K., Wade, C. M., Mikkelsen, T. S., Karlsson, E. K., Jaffe, D. B., Kamal, M., Clamp, M., Chang, J. L., Kulbokas, E. J., et al. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04338 · Cited by 2,568
The sequence and de novo assembly of the giant panda genome
Li, R., Fan, W., Tian, G., Zhu, H., He, L., Cai, J., Huang, Q., Cai, Q., Li, B., Bai, Y., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08696 · Cited by 1,180
Dalloul, R. A., Long, J. A., Zimin, A. V., Aslam, L., Beal, K., Ann Blomberg, L., Bouffard, P., Burt, D. W., Crasta, O., Crooijmans, R. P. M. A., et al. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000475 · Cited by 416
Self-citation
Cited by
Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P., & Tyson, G. W. (2015) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.186072.114 · Cited by 12,496
QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies
Gurevich, A., Saveliev, V., Vyahhi, N., & Tesler, G. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 · Cited by 11,172
metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler
Nurk, S., Meleshko, D., Korobeynikov, A., & Pevzner, P. A. (2017) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.213959.116 · Cited by 4,496
Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data
Chin, C.-S., Alexander, D. H., Marks, P., Klammer, A. A., Drake, J., Heiner, C., Clum, A., Copeland, A., Huddleston, J., Eichler, E. E., et al. (2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2474 · Cited by 4,029
De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing
Li, R., Zhu, H., Ruan, J., Qian, W., Fang, X., Shi, Z., Li, Y., Li, S., Shan, G., Kristiansen, K., et al. (2010) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.097261.109 · Cited by 2,926
Metadata
- Authors
- Salzberg, S. L., Phillippy, A. M., Zimin, A., Puiu, D., Magoc, T., Koren, S., Treangen, T. J., Schatz, M. C., Delcher, A. L., Roberts, M., Marçais, G., Pop, M., & Yorke, J. A.
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2011-12-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 557-567
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127768708
- Cited by
- 682
- References
- 8
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GAGE: A critical evaluation of genome assemblies and assembly algorithms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.131383.111
- The paper
- Salzberg, S. L., Phillippy, A. M., Zimin, A., Puiu, D., Magoc, T., Koren, S., Treangen, T. J., Schatz, M. C., Delcher, A. L., Roberts, M., Marçais, G., Pop, M., & Yorke, J. A. (2012). GAGE: A critical evaluation of genome assemblies and assembly algorithms. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.131383.111
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
