Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oxford Nanopore sequencing, hybrid error correction, and de novo assembly of a eukaryotic genome

Open access
Goodwin, Sara, Gurtowski, James, Ethe-Sayers, Scott, Deshpande, Panchajanya, Schatz, Michael C., McCombie, W. Richard·2015·Genome Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Monitoring the progress of DNA molecules through a membrane pore has been postulated as a method for sequencing DNA for several decades. Recently, a nanopore-based sequencing instrument, the Oxford Nanopore MinION, has become available, and we used this for sequencing the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. To make use of these data, we developed a novel open-source hybrid error correction algorithm Nanocorr specifically for Oxford Nanopore reads, because existing packages were incapable of assembling the long read lengths (5–50 kbp) at such high error rates (between ∼5% and 40% error). With this new method, we were able to perform a hybrid error correction of the nanopore reads using complementary MiSeq data and produce a de novo assembly that is highly contiguous and accurate: The contig N50 length is more than ten times greater than an Illumina-only assembly (678 kb versus 59.9 kbp) and has >99.88% consensus identity when compared to the reference. Furthermore, the assembly with the long nanopore reads presents a much more complete representation of the features of the genome and correctly assembles gene cassettes, rRNAs, transposable elements, and other genomic features that were almost entirely absent in the Illumina-only assembly.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/gr.191395.115

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1038/nature13907 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1038/nmeth.2474 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1038/nnano.2009.12 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1038/nbt0412-295 · DOI
  5. 10.1073/pnas.93.24.13770 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1038/nbt.2280 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu555 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164359 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1073/pnas.74.2.560 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1186/2047-217X-3-22 · DOI
  11. 10.1073/pnas.74.12.5463 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/0022-2836(80)90196-5 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1073/pnas.1310615110 · DOI
  14. 10.1073/pnas.0901054106 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1038/nnano.2011.129 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1371/journal.pone.0112963 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1166/jnn.2013.7756 · DOI

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Goodwin, S., Gurtowski, J., Ethe-Sayers, S., Deshpande, P., Schatz, M. C., & McCombie, W. R.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2015-10-07
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
1750-1756
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2189047836
Cited by
382
References
2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DBI-1350041, IOS-1032105)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-HG006677)
  • Cancer Center Support (CA045508)

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: Oxford Nanopore sequencing, hybrid error correction, and de novo assembly of a eukaryotic genome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.191395.115
The paper
Goodwin, S., Gurtowski, J., Ethe-Sayers, S., Deshpande, P., Schatz, M. C., & McCombie, W. R. (2015). Oxford Nanopore sequencing, hybrid error correction, and de novo assembly of a eukaryotic genome. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.191395.115

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.