MOTIVATION: Several new de novo assembly tools have been developed recently to assemble short sequencing reads generated by next-generation sequencing platforms. However, the performance of these tools under various conditions has not been fully investigated, and sufficient information is not currently available for informed decisions to be made regarding the tool that would be most likely to produce the best performance under a specific set of conditions. RESULTS: We studied and compared the performance of commonly used de novo assembly tools specifically designed for next-generation sequencing data, including SSAKE, VCAKE, Euler-sr, Edena, Velvet, ABySS and SOAPdenovo. Tools were compared using several performance criteria, including N50 length, sequence coverage and assembly accuracy. Various properties of read data, including single-end/paired-end, sequence GC content, depth of coverage and base calling error rates, were investigated for their effects on the performance of different assembly tools. We also compared the computation time and memory usage of these seven tools. Based on the results of our comparison, the relative performance of individual tools are summarized and tentative guidelines for optimal selection of different assembly tools, under different conditions, are provided.
MOTIVATION: Several new de novo assembly tools have been developed recently to assemble short sequencing reads generated by next-generation sequencing platforms. However, the performance of these tools under various conditions has not been fully investigated, and sufficient information is not currently available for informed decisions to be made regarding the tool that would be most likely to produce the best performance under a specific set of conditions. RESULTS: We studied and compared the performance of commonly used de novo assembly tools specifically designed for next-generation sequencing data, including SSAKE, VCAKE, Euler-sr, Edena, Velvet, ABySS and SOAPdenovo. Tools were compared using several performance criteria, including N50 length, sequence coverage and assembly accuracy. Various properties of read data, including single-end/paired-end, sequence GC content, depth of coverage and base calling error rates, were investigated for their effects on the performance of different assembly tools. We also compared the computation time and memory usage of these seven tools. Based on the results of our comparison, the relative performance of individual tools are summarized and tentative guidelines for optimal selection of different assembly tools, under different conditions, are provided.
Authors: E S Lander; L M Linton; B Birren; C Nusbaum; M C Zody; J Baldwin; K Devon; K Dewar; M Doyle; W FitzHugh; R Funke; D Gage; K Harris; A Heaford; J Howland; L Kann; J Lehoczky; R LeVine; P McEwan; K McKernan; J Meldrim; J P Mesirov; C Miranda; W Morris; J Naylor; C Raymond; M Rosetti; R Santos; A Sheridan; C Sougnez; Y Stange-Thomann; N Stojanovic; A Subramanian; D Wyman; J Rogers; J Sulston; R Ainscough; S Beck; D Bentley; J Burton; C Clee; N Carter; A Coulson; R Deadman; P Deloukas; A Dunham; I Dunham; R Durbin; L French; D Grafham; S Gregory; T Hubbard; S Humphray; A Hunt; M Jones; C Lloyd; A McMurray; L Matthews; S Mercer; S Milne; J C Mullikin; A Mungall; R Plumb; M Ross; R Shownkeen; S Sims; R H Waterston; R K Wilson; L W Hillier; J D McPherson; M A Marra; E R Mardis; L A Fulton; A T Chinwalla; K H Pepin; W R Gish; S L Chissoe; M C Wendl; K D Delehaunty; T L Miner; A Delehaunty; J B Kramer; L L Cook; R S Fulton; D L Johnson; P J Minx; S W Clifton; T Hawkins; E Branscomb; P Predki; P Richardson; S Wenning; T Slezak; N Doggett; J F Cheng; A Olsen; S Lucas; C Elkin; E Uberbacher; M Frazier; R A Gibbs; D M Muzny; S E Scherer; J B Bouck; E J Sodergren; K C Worley; C M Rives; J H Gorrell; M L Metzker; S L Naylor; R S Kucherlapati; D L Nelson; G M Weinstock; Y Sakaki; A Fujiyama; M Hattori; T Yada; A Toyoda; T Itoh; C Kawagoe; H Watanabe; Y Totoki; T Taylor; J Weissenbach; R Heilig; W Saurin; F Artiguenave; P Brottier; T Bruls; E Pelletier; C Robert; P Wincker; D R Smith; L Doucette-Stamm; M Rubenfield; K Weinstock; H M Lee; J Dubois; A Rosenthal; M Platzer; G Nyakatura; S Taudien; A Rump; H Yang; J Yu; J Wang; G Huang; J Gu; L Hood; L Rowen; A Madan; S Qin; R W Davis; N A Federspiel; A P Abola; M J Proctor; R M Myers; J Schmutz; M Dickson; J Grimwood; D R Cox; M V Olson; R Kaul; C Raymond; N Shimizu; K Kawasaki; S Minoshima; G A Evans; M Athanasiou; R Schultz; B A Roe; F Chen; H Pan; J Ramser; H Lehrach; R Reinhardt; W R McCombie; M de la Bastide; N Dedhia; H Blöcker; K Hornischer; G Nordsiek; R Agarwala; L Aravind; J A Bailey; A Bateman; S Batzoglou; E Birney; P Bork; D G Brown; C B Burge; L Cerutti; H C Chen; D Church; M Clamp; R R Copley; T Doerks; S R Eddy; E E Eichler; T S Furey; J Galagan; J G Gilbert; C Harmon; Y Hayashizaki; D Haussler; H Hermjakob; K Hokamp; W Jang; L S Johnson; T A Jones; S Kasif; A Kaspryzk; S Kennedy; W J Kent; P Kitts; E V Koonin; I Korf; D Kulp; D Lancet; T M Lowe; A McLysaght; T Mikkelsen; J V Moran; N Mulder; V J Pollara; C P Ponting; G Schuler; J Schultz; G Slater; A F Smit; E Stupka; J Szustakowki; D Thierry-Mieg; J Thierry-Mieg; L Wagner; J Wallis; R Wheeler; A Williams; Y I Wolf; K H Wolfe; S P Yang; R F Yeh; F Collins; M S Guyer; J Peterson; A Felsenfeld; K A Wetterstrand; A Patrinos; M J Morgan; P de Jong; J J Catanese; K Osoegawa; H Shizuya; S Choi; Y J Chen; J Szustakowki Journal: Nature Date: 2001-02-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: William R Jeck; Josephine A Reinhardt; David A Baltrus; Matthew T Hickenbotham; Vincent Magrini; Elaine R Mardis; Jeffery L Dangl; Corbin D Jones Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Scott Schwartz; W James Kent; Arian Smit; Zheng Zhang; Robert Baertsch; Ross C Hardison; David Haussler; Webb Miller Journal: Genome Res Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Dent Earl; Keith Bradnam; John St John; Aaron Darling; Dawei Lin; Joseph Fass; Hung On Ken Yu; Vince Buffalo; Daniel R Zerbino; Mark Diekhans; Ngan Nguyen; Pramila Nuwantha Ariyaratne; Wing-Kin Sung; Zemin Ning; Matthias Haimel; Jared T Simpson; Nuno A Fonseca; İnanç Birol; T Roderick Docking; Isaac Y Ho; Daniel S Rokhsar; Rayan Chikhi; Dominique Lavenier; Guillaume Chapuis; Delphine Naquin; Nicolas Maillet; Michael C Schatz; David R Kelley; Adam M Phillippy; Sergey Koren; Shiaw-Pyng Yang; Wei Wu; Wen-Chi Chou; Anuj Srivastava; Timothy I Shaw; J Graham Ruby; Peter Skewes-Cox; Miguel Betegon; Michelle T Dimon; Victor Solovyev; Igor Seledtsov; Petr Kosarev; Denis Vorobyev; Ricardo Ramirez-Gonzalez; Richard Leggett; Dan MacLean; Fangfang Xia; Ruibang Luo; Zhenyu Li; Yinlong Xie; Binghang Liu; Sante Gnerre; Iain MacCallum; Dariusz Przybylski; Filipe J Ribeiro; Shuangye Yin; Ted Sharpe; Giles Hall; Paul J Kersey; Richard Durbin; Shaun D Jackman; Jarrod A Chapman; Xiaoqiu Huang; Joseph L DeRisi; Mario Caccamo; Yingrui Li; David B Jaffe; Richard E Green; David Haussler; Ian Korf; Benedict Paten Journal: Genome Res Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Antony Kaspi; Mark Ziemann; Samuel T Keating; Ishant Khurana; Timothy Connor; Briana Spolding; Adrian Cooper; Ross Lazarus; Ken Walder; Paul Zimmet; Assam El-Osta Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: David R Adams; Murat Sincan; Karin Fuentes Fajardo; James C Mullikin; Tyler M Pierson; Camilo Toro; Cornelius F Boerkoel; Cynthia J Tifft; William A Gahl; Tom C Markello Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Kyle R Pomraning; Kristina M Smith; Erin L Bredeweg; Lanelle R Connolly; Pallavi A Phatale; Michael Freitag Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2012