Cited by 150Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesAlgorithms and Data Compression

A comprehensive evaluation of long read error correction methods

Open access
Zhang, Haowen, Jain, Chirag, Aluru, Srinivas·2020·BMC Genomics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Third-generation single molecule sequencing technologies can sequence long reads, which is advancing the frontiers of genomics research. However, their high error rates prohibit accurate and efficient downstream analysis. This difficulty has motivated the development of many long read error correction tools, which tackle this problem through sampling redundancy and/or leveraging accurate short reads of the same biological samples. Existing studies to asses these tools use simulated data sets, and are not sufficiently comprehensive in the range of software covered or diversity of evaluation measures used. Results: In this paper, we present a categorization and review of long read error correction methods, and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the corresponding long read error correction tools. Leveraging recent real sequencing data, we establish benchmark data sets and set up evaluation criteria for a comparative assessment which includes quality of error correction as well as run-time and memory usage. We study how trimming and long read sequencing depth affect error correction in terms of length distribution and genome coverage post-correction, and the impact of error correction performance on an important application of long reads, genome assembly. We provide guidelines for practitioners for choosing among the available error correction tools and identify directions for future research. Conclusions: Despite the high error rate of long reads, the state-of-the-art correction tools can achieve high correction quality. When short reads are available, the best hybrid methods outperform non-hybrid methods in terms of correction quality and computing resource usage. When choosing tools for use, practitioners are suggested to be careful with a few correction tools that discard reads, and check the effect of error correction tools on downstream analysis. Our evaluation code is available as open-source at https://github.com/haowenz/LRECE .

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/s12864-020-07227-0

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.

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?

  • The 15-20% pseudorandom sequencing errors typically associated with CLRs can be effectively mitigated by the Flye assembler and ensuing polishing regimens to yield a high-quality assembly essentially free of residual sequencing errors.

    “As shown here and in our previous study of the North American wolverine genome60, the 15–20% pseudorandom sequencing errors typically associated with CLRs51 can be effectively mitigated by the Flye assembler and the ensuing polishing regimens to yield a high-quality assembly that is essentially free of residual sequencing errors.”

    From Chromosomal-level reference genome assembly of muskox (Ovibos moschatus) from Banks Island in the Canadian Arctic, a resource for conservation genomics (2024) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Background (page unavailable) says PacBio sequencing errors appear randomly distributed, supporting the description of pseudorandom errors in CLRs. It gives a 10–20% error-rate range for PacBio and ONT, however, rather than establishing the cited 15–20% range specifically for CLRs. The citation is attached to the error-rate statement, not the sentence’s claim about Flye and polishing. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 150

Authors
Zhang, H., Jain, C., & Aluru, S.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Aluru, Srinivas
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2020-12
Volume
21
Issue
S6
Pages
889-889
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3115745540
Cited by
150
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
NSF (CCF-1718479)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
Keywords
long-read error correction, long-read sequencing, single-molecule sequencing, hybrid error correction, genome assembly, sequencing depth, read trimming, genome coverage, computational resource usage
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Software, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Genomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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