PreprintCited by 12,496Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

CheckM: Assessing the Quality of Microbial Genomes Recovered from Isolates, Single Cells, and Metagenomes

Open access
Parks, Donovan H., Imelfort, Michael, Skennerton, Connor T., Hugenholtz, Philip, Tyson, Gene W.·2015·Genome Research

Abstract

Large-scale recovery of genomes from isolates, single cells, and metagenomic data has been made possible by advances in computational methods and substantial reductions in sequencing costs. Although this increasing breadth of draft genomes is providing key information regarding the evolutionary and functional diversity of microbial life, it has become impractical to finish all available reference genomes. Making robust biological inferences from draft genomes requires accurate estimates of their completeness and contamination. Current methods for assessing genome quality are ad hoc and generally make use of a limited number of "marker" genes conserved across all bacterial or archaeal genomes. Here we introduce CheckM, an automated method for assessing the quality of a genome using a broader set of marker genes specific to the position of a genome within a reference genome tree and information about the collocation of these genes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CheckM using synthetic data and a wide range of isolate-, single-cell-, and metagenome-derived genomes. CheckM is shown to provide accurate estimates of genome completeness and contamination and to outperform existing approaches. Using CheckM, we identify a diverse range of errors currently impacting publicly available isolate genomes and demonstrate that genomes obtained from single cells and metagenomic data vary substantially in quality. In order to facilitate the use of draft genomes, we propose an objective measure of genome quality that can be used to select genomes suitable for specific gene- and genome-centric analyses of microbial communities.

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/gr.186072.114

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
Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P., & Tyson, G. W.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2015-05-14
Volume
25
Issue
7
Pages
1043-1055
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2112364185
Cited by
12,496
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1931 · 2025: 2112 · 2024: 1929 · 2023: 1587 · 2022: 1403 · 2021: 1204 · 2020: 928 · 2019: 582 · 2018: 381 · 2017: 261 · 2016: 117 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Great Barrier Reef Foundation
  • Australian Research Council (DP120103498, DP1093175)
  • Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award
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
CheckM, genome completeness, genome contamination, draft genome sequence, microbial genomes, marker genes, single-cell genomics, metagenome, genome quality assessment, bacterial and archaeal genomes
MeSH terms
Metagenome, Metagenomics, Genome, Microbial

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