Gaps and complex structurally variant loci in phased genome assemblies
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
There has been tremendous progress in phased genome assembly production by combining long-read data with parental information or linked-read data. Nevertheless, a typical phased genome assembly generated by trio-hifiasm still generates more than 140 gaps. We perform a detailed analysis of gaps, assembly breaks, and misorientations from 182 haploid assemblies obtained from a diversity panel of 77 unique human samples. Although trio-based approaches using HiFi are the current gold standard, chromosome-wide phasing accuracy is comparable when using Strand-seq instead of parental data. Importantly, the majority of assembly gaps cluster near the largest and most identical repeats (including segmental duplications [35.4%], satellite DNA [22.3%], or regions enriched in GA/AT-rich DNA [27.4%]). Consequently, 1513 protein-coding genes overlap assembly gaps in at least one haplotype, and 231 are recurrently disrupted or missing from five or more haplotypes. Furthermore, we estimate that 6–7 Mbp of DNA are misorientated per haplotype irrespective of whether trio-free or trio-based approaches are used. Of these misorientations, 81% correspond to bona fide large inversion polymorphisms in the human species, most of which are flanked by large segmental duplications. We also identify large-scale alignment discontinuities consistent with 11.9 Mbp of deletions and 161.4 Mbp of insertions per haploid genome. Although 99% of this variation corresponds to satellite DNA, we identify 230 regions of euchromatic DNA with frequent expansions and contractions, nearly half of which overlap with 197 protein-coding genes. Such variable and incompletely assembled regions are important targets for future algorithmic development and pangenome representation.
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
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.
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?
Compared with Ebert et al., the average median base level accuracy is nearly an order of magnitude higher, the N50 contiguity is nearly double and the structural accuracy is higher.
“For example, compared with Ebert et al.5, the average median base level accuracy is nearly an order of magnitude higher, the N50 contiguity is nearly double and the structural accuracy is higher33.”
From A draft human pangenome reference. (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
The Results section (‘Platform and assembly method comparisons’; page not available) reports that trio-based assemblies have a contig N50 of 40.83 Mbp and outperform the trio-free assemblies associated with Ebert et al. It does not establish that N50 is nearly double, quantify a nearly tenfold difference in median base-level accuracy, or report the claimed comparison in structural accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSome challenges around loci that harbour copy number polymorphisms and/or inversions remained.
“Some challenges around loci that harbour copy number polymorphisms and/or inversions remained33.”
From A draft human pangenome reference. (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
Strand-seq data from a subset of assemblies revealed 6-7 Mb of incorrectly oriented sequence per haplotype, indicating room to structurally improve the assemblies.
“Similarly, in a companion analysis, Strand-seq data from a subset of assemblies revealed 6–7 Mb of incorrectly oriented sequence per haplotype33, which indicates that there is room to structurally improve the assemblies.”
From A draft human pangenome reference. (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 58
- Authors
- Porubsky, D., Vollger, M. R., Harvey, W. T., Rozanski, A. N., Ebert, P., Hickey, G., Hasenfeld, P., Sanders, A. D., Stober, C., Human Pangenome Reference Consortium, Korbel, J. O., Paten, B., Marschall, T., & Eichler, E. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory (DE)
- Max Delbrück Center (DE)
- European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Eichler, Evan E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2023-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 496-510
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-5469
- PMC
- PMC10234299
- OpenAlex
- W4376106519
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Genome Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- MDC Repository (Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5R01HG002385, 5U01HG010971, 1U01HG010973)
- European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
- Marie Sklodowska-Curie (956229)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
- Keywords
- phased genome assembly, assembly gaps, structural variants, segmental duplication, satellite DNA, inversion polymorphism, indels, haploid genome, Strand-seq, long-read sequencing, pan-genome
- MeSH terms
- DNA, Satellite, Haplotypes, Humans, Polymorphism, Genetic, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Segmental Duplications, Genomic
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