Cited by 287Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesAlgorithms and Data CompressionFractal and DNA sequence analysis

Effects of GC Bias in Next-Generation-Sequencing Data on De Novo Genome Assembly

Open access
Chen, Yen-Chun, Liu, Tsunglin, Yu, Chun-Hui, Chiang, Tzen-Yuh, Hwang, Chi-Chuan·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Next-generation-sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized the field of genome assembly because of its much higher data throughput and much lower cost compared with traditional Sanger sequencing. However, NGS poses new computational challenges to de novo genome assembly. Among the challenges, GC bias in NGS data is known to aggravate genome assembly. However, it is not clear to what extent GC bias affects genome assembly in general. In this work, we conduct a systematic analysis on the effects of GC bias on genome assembly. Our analyses reveal that GC bias only lowers assembly completeness when the degree of GC bias is above a threshold. At a strong GC bias, the assembly fragmentation due to GC bias can be explained by the low coverage of reads in the GC-poor or GC-rich regions of a genome. This effect is observed for all the assemblers under study. Increasing the total amount of NGS data thus rescues the assembly fragmentation because of GC bias. However, the amount of data needed for a full rescue depends on the distribution of GC contents. Both low and high coverage depths due to GC bias lower the accuracy of assembly. These pieces of information provide guidance toward a better de novo genome assembly in the presence of GC bias.

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.0062856

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • High-throughput sequencing and sample dilution are modeled using random sampling because GC content in the files did not show practically significant bias in the PCR GC bias test.

    “Illumina sequencing was previously observed to have bias on GC-extreme sequences15,27,28, but GC content in our files did not show practically significant bias in the PCR GC bias test. Therefore, high-throughput sequencing and sample dilution are modeled using random sampling.”

    From Quantifying Molecular Bias in DNA Data Storage (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y.-C., Liu, T., Yu, C.-H., Chiang, T.-Y., & Hwang, C.-C.
Affiliations
National Cheng Kung University (TW)
Corresponding author
Hwang, Chi-Chuan
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-04-29
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
e62856
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998330439
Cited by
285
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
Keywords
GC content bias, de novo genome assembly, next-generation sequencing, assembly completeness, read coverage, assembly accuracy
MeSH terms
Reference Standards, Artifacts, Genome, Bacterial, GC Rich Sequence, 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