↓ Skip to main content

BASE: a practical de novo assembler for large genomes using long NGS reads

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
BASE: a practical de novo assembler for large genomes using long NGS reads
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2829-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Binghang Liu, Chi-Man Liu, Dinghua Li, Yingrui Li, Hing-Fung Ting, Siu-Ming Yiu, Ruibang Luo, Tak-Wah Lam

Abstract

De novo genome assembly using NGS data remains a computation-intensive task especially for large genomes. In practice, efficiency is often a primary concern and favors using a more efficient assembler like SOAPdenovo2. Yet SOAPdenovo2, based on de Bruijn graph, fails to take full advantage of longer NGS reads (say, 150 bp to 250 bp from Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq). Assemblers that are based on string graphs (e.g., SGA), though less popular and also very slow, are more favorable for longer reads. This paper shows a new de novo assembler called BASE. It enhances the classic seed-extension approach by indexing the reads efficiently to generate adaptive seeds that have high probability to appear uniquely in the genome. Such seeds form the basis for BASE to build extension trees and then to use reverse validation to remove the branches based on read coverage and paired-end information, resulting in high-quality consensus sequences of reads sharing the seeds. Such consensus sequences are then extended to contigs. Experiments on two bacteria and four human datasets shows the advantage of BASE in both contig quality and speed in dealing with longer reads. In the experiment on bacteria, two datasets with read length of 100 bp and 250 bp were used.. Especially for the 250 bp dataset, BASE gives much better quality than SOAPdenovo2 and SGA and is simlilar to SPAdes. Regarding speed, BASE is consistently a few times faster than SPAdes and SGA, but still slower than SOAPdenovo2. BASE and Soapdenov2 are further compared using human datasets with read length 100 bp, 150 bp and 250 bp. BASE shows a higher N50 for all datasets, while the improvement becomes more significant when read length reaches 250 bp. Besides, BASE is more-meory efficent than SOAPdenovo2 when sequencing data with error rate. BASE is a practically efficient tool for constructing contig, with significant improvement in quality for long NGS reads. It is relatively easy to extend BASE to include scaffolding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 30%
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 26%
Computer Science 4 8%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,469,995
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#8,197
of 10,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,299
of 337,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#208
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,668 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.