Cited by 240Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies

Comparing and evaluating metagenome assembly tools from a microbiologist's perspective - not only size matters!

Open access
Vollmers, John, Wiegand, Sandra, Kaster, Anne-Kristin·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

With the constant improvement in cost-efficiency and quality of Next Generation Sequencing technologies, shotgun-sequencing approaches -such as metagenomics- have nowadays become the methods of choice for studying and classifying microorganisms from various habitats. The production of data has dramatically increased over the past years and processing and analysis steps are becoming more and more of a bottleneck. Limiting factors are partly the availability of computational resources, but mainly the bioinformatics expertise in establishing and applying appropriate processing and analysis pipelines. Fortunately, a large diversity of specialized software tools is nowadays available. Nevertheless, choosing the most appropriate methods for answering specific biological questions can be rather challenging, especially for non-bioinformaticians. In order to provide a comprehensive overview and guide for the microbiological scientific community, we assessed the most common and freely available metagenome assembly tools with respect to their output statistics, their sensitivity for low abundant community members and variability in resulting community profiles as well as their ease-of-use. In contrast to the highly anticipated "Critical Assessment of Metagenomic Interpretation" (CAMI) challenge, which uses general mock community-based assembler comparison we here tested assemblers on real Illumina metagenome sequencing data from natural communities of varying complexity sampled from forest soil and algal biofilms. Our observations clearly demonstrate that different assembly tools can prove optimal, depending on the sample type, available computational resources and, most importantly, the specific research goal. In addition, we present detailed descriptions of the underlying principles and pitfalls of publically available assembly tools from a microbiologist's perspective, and provide guidance regarding the user-friendliness, sensitivity and reliability of the resulting phylogenetic profiles.

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.0169662

Cites

94 of 94 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?

  • metaSPAdes is MGnify's primary assembly algorithm because the ensuing assemblies are typically of better quality than those produced using other assemblers.

    “Assembly is a computationally expensive process, frequently requiring terabytes of memory to accomplish when using metaSPAdes (20), which is our primary assembly algorithm, as the ensuing assemblies are typically of better quality than those produced using other assemblers (21).”

    From MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020 (2019) · cites this paper as [21]

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

2 of the 96 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [86]Fu L, Niu B, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2012; 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts565 23060610 PMC3516142 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vollmers, J., Wiegand, S., & Kaster, A.-K.
Affiliations
Leibniz Institute DSMZ – German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DE)
Corresponding author
Kaster, Anne-Kristin
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-01-18
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
e0169662
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2572263783
Cited by
240
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 22 · 2015: 1
FWCI
11.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of East Anglia
  • Max-Planck-Institut für Terrestrische Mikrobiologie
  • Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
metagenome assembly, assembler comparison, shotgun sequencing, low-abundance taxa, phylogenetic profiles, algal biofilms, CAMI challenge, mock communities, ease of use
MeSH terms
Phylogeny, Software, Soil Microbiology, Macrocystis, Biodiversity, Metagenome, Metagenomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Forests

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