Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Metagenomic Assembly Using Simulated Next Generation Sequencing Data

Open access
Mende, Daniel R., Waller, Alison S., Sunagawa, Shinichi, Järvelin, Aino I., Chan, Michelle M., Arumugam, Manimozhiyan, Raes, Jeroen, Bork, Peer·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Due to the complexity of the protocols and a limited knowledge of the nature of microbial communities, simulating metagenomic sequences plays an important role in testing the performance of existing tools and data analysis methods with metagenomic data. We developed metagenomic read simulators with platform-specific (Sanger, pyrosequencing, Illumina) base-error models, and simulated metagenomes of differing community complexities. We first evaluated the effect of rigorous quality control on Illumina data. Although quality filtering removed a large proportion of the data, it greatly improved the accuracy and contig lengths of resulting assemblies. We then compared the quality-trimmed Illumina assemblies to those from Sanger and pyrosequencing. For the simple community (10 genomes) all sequencing technologies assembled a similar amount and accurately represented the expected functional composition. For the more complex community (100 genomes) Illumina produced the best assemblies and more correctly resembled the expected functional composition. For the most complex community (400 genomes) there was very little assembly of reads from any sequencing technology. However, due to the longer read length the Sanger reads still represented the overall functional composition reasonably well. We further examined the effect of scaffolding of contigs using paired-end Illumina reads. It dramatically increased contig lengths of the simple community and yielded minor improvements to the more complex communities. Although the increase in contig length was accompanied by increased chimericity, it resulted in more complete genes and a better characterization of the functional repertoire. The metagenomic simulators developed for this research are freely available.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0031386

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 296

Metadata

Authors
Mende, D. R., Waller, A. S., Sunagawa, S., Järvelin, A. I., Chan, M. M., Arumugam, M., Raes, J., & Bork, P.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-02-23
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
e31386
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085631282
Cited by
296
References
7
FWCI
8.13
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: Assessment of Metagenomic Assembly Using Simulated Next Generation Sequencing Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0031386
The paper
Mende, D. R., Waller, A. S., Sunagawa, S., Järvelin, A. I., Chan, M. M., Arumugam, M., Raes, J., & Bork, P. (2012). Assessment of Metagenomic Assembly Using Simulated Next Generation Sequencing Data. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031386

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.