Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 670

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assemblathon 2: evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species

Open access
Bradnam, Keith R, Fass, Joseph N, Alexandrov, Anton, Baranay, Paul, Bechner, Michael, Birol, Inanç, Boisvert, Sébastien, Chapman, Jarrod A, Chapuis, Guillaume, Chikhi, Rayan, Chitsaz, Hamidreza, Chou, Wen-Chi, Corbeil, Jacques, Del Fabbro, Cristian, Docking, T Roderick, Durbin, Richard, Earl, Dent, Emrich, Scott, Fedotov, Pavel, Fonseca, Nuno A, Ganapathy, Ganeshkumar, Gibbs, Richard A, Gnerre, Sante, Godzaridis, Élénie, Goldstein, Steve, Haimel, Matthias, Hall, Giles, Haussler, David, Hiatt, Joseph B, Ho, Isaac Y, Howard, Jason, Hunt, Martin, Jackman, Shaun D, Jaffe, David B, Jarvis, Erich D, Jiang, Huaiyang, Kazakov, Sergey, Kersey, Paul J, Kitzman, Jacob O, Knight, James R, Koren, Sergey, Lam, Tak-Wah, Lavenier, Dominique, Laviolette, François, Li, Yingrui, Li, Zhenyu, Liu, Binghang, Liu, Yue, Luo, Ruibang, MacCallum, Iain, MacManes, Matthew D, Maillet, Nicolas, Melnikov, Sergey, Naquin, Delphine, Ning, Zemin, Otto, Thomas D, Paten, Benedict, Paulo, Octávio S, Phillippy, Adam M, Pina-Martins, Francisco, Place, Michael, Przybylski, Dariusz, Qin, Xiang, Qu, Carson, Ribeiro, Filipe J, Richards, Stephen, Rokhsar, Daniel S, Ruby, J Graham, Scalabrin, Simone, Schatz, Michael C, Schwartz, David C, Sergushichev, Alexey, Sharpe, Ted, Shaw, Timothy I, Shendure, Jay, Shi, Yujian, Simpson, Jared T, Song, Henry, Tsarev, Fedor, Vezzi, Francesco, Vicedomini, Riccardo, Vieira, Bruno M, Wang, Jun, Worley, Kim C, Yin, Shuangye, Yiu, Siu-Ming, Yuan, Jianying, Zhang, Guojie, Zhang, Hao, Zhou, Shiguo, Korf, Ian F·2013·Gigascience

Abstract

Background: The process of generating raw genome sequence data continues to become cheaper, faster, and more accurate. However, assembly of such data into high-quality, finished genome sequences remains challenging. Many genome assembly tools are available, but they differ greatly in terms of their performance (speed, scalability, hardware requirements, acceptance of newer read technologies) and in their final output (composition of assembled sequence). More importantly, it remains largely unclear how to best assess the quality of assembled genome sequences. The Assemblathon competitions are intended to assess current state-of-the-art methods in genome assembly. Results: In Assemblathon 2, we provided a variety of sequence data to be assembled for three vertebrate species (a bird, a fish, and snake). This resulted in a total of 43 submitted assemblies from 21 participating teams. We evaluated these assemblies using a combination of optical map data, Fosmid sequences, and several statistical methods. From over 100 different metrics, we chose ten key measures by which to assess the overall quality of the assemblies. Conclusions: Many current genome assemblers produced useful assemblies, containing a significant representation of their genes and overall genome structure. However, the high degree of variability between the entries suggests that there is still much room for improvement in the field of genome assembly and that approaches which work well in assembling the genome of one species may not necessarily work well for another.

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 · 10.1186/2047-217x-2-10

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 670

Metadata

Authors
Bradnam, K. R., Fass, J. N., Alexandrov, A., Baranay, P., Bechner, M., Birol, I., Boisvert, S., Chapman, J. A., Chapuis, G., Chikhi, R., Chitsaz, H., Chou, W.-C., Corbeil, J., Del Fabbro, C., Docking, T. R., Durbin, R., Earl, D., Emrich, S., Fedotov, P., Fonseca, N. A., Ganapathy, G., Gibbs, R. A., Gnerre, S., Godzaridis, É., Goldstein, S., Haimel, M., Hall, G., Haussler, D., Hiatt, J. B., Ho, I. Y., Howard, J., Hunt, M., Jackman, S. D., Jaffe, D. B., Jarvis, E. D., Jiang, H., Kazakov, S., Kersey, P. J., Kitzman, J. O., Knight, J. R., Koren, S., Lam, T.-W., Lavenier, D., Laviolette, F., Li, Y., Li, Z., Liu, B., Liu, Y., Luo, R., MacCallum, I., MacManes, M. D., Maillet, N., Melnikov, S., Naquin, D., Ning, Z., Otto, T. D., Paten, B., Paulo, O. S., Phillippy, A. M., Pina-Martins, F., Place, M., Przybylski, D., Qin, X., Qu, C., Ribeiro, F. J., Richards, S., Rokhsar, D. S., Ruby, J. G., Scalabrin, S., Schatz, M. C., Schwartz, D. C., Sergushichev, A., Sharpe, T., Shaw, T. I., Shendure, J., Shi, Y., Simpson, J. T., Song, H., Tsarev, F., Vezzi, F., Vicedomini, R., Vieira, B. M., Wang, J., Worley, K. C., Yin, S., Yiu, S.-M., Yuan, J., Zhang, G., Zhang, H., Zhou, S., & Korf, I. F.
Venue
Gigascience
Published
2013-07-22
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
2047-217X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102532874
Cited by
670
References
6
FWCI
33.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Assemblathon 2: evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/2047-217x-2-10
The paper
Bradnam, K. R., Fass, J. N., Alexandrov, A., Baranay, P., Bechner, M., Birol, I., Boisvert, S., Chapman, J. A., Chapuis, G., Chikhi, R., Chitsaz, H., Chou, W.-C., Corbeil, J., Del Fabbro, C., Docking, T. R., Durbin, R., Earl, D., Emrich, S., Fedotov, P., . . . Korf, I. F. (2013). Assemblathon 2: evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species. Gigascience. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-217x-2-10

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.