Literature DB >> 22184334

Comparison of the two major classes of assembly algorithms: overlap-layout-consensus and de-bruijn-graph.

Zhenyu Li1, Yanxiang Chen, Desheng Mu, Jianying Yuan, Yujian Shi, Hao Zhang, Jun Gan, Nan Li, Xuesong Hu, Binghang Liu, Bicheng Yang, Wei Fan.   

Abstract

Since the completion of the cucumber and panda genome projects using Illumina sequencing in 2009, the global scientific community has had to pay much more attention to this new cost-effective approach to generate the draft sequence of large genomes. To allow new users to more easily understand the assembly algorithms and the optimum software packages for their projects, we make a detailed comparison of the two major classes of assembly algorithms: overlap-layout-consensus and de-bruijn-graph, from how they match the Lander-Waterman model, to the required sequencing depth and reads length. We also discuss the computational efficiency of each class of algorithm, the influence of repeats and heterozygosity and points of note in the subsequent scaffold linkage and gap closure steps. We hope this review can help further promote the application of second-generation de novo sequencing, as well as aid the future development of assembly algorithms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22184334     DOI: 10.1093/bfgp/elr035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brief Funct Genomics        ISSN: 2041-2649            Impact factor:   4.241


  58 in total

1.  Exploring variation-aware contig graphs for (comparative) metagenomics using MaryGold.

Authors:  Jurgen F Nijkamp; Mihai Pop; Marcel J T Reinders; Dick de Ridder
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  The combination of direct and paired link graphs can boost repetitive genome assembly.

Authors:  Wenyu Shi; Peifeng Ji; Fangqing Zhao
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  Assembly of long error-prone reads using de Bruijn graphs.

Authors:  Yu Lin; Jeffrey Yuan; Mikhail Kolmogorov; Max W Shen; Mark Chaisson; Pavel A Pevzner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Portable nanopore analytics: are we there yet?

Authors:  Marco Oliva; Franco Milicchio; Kaden King; Grace Benson; Christina Boucher; Mattia Prosperi
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2020-08-15       Impact factor: 6.937

Review 5.  Nanopore sequencing technology and tools for genome assembly: computational analysis of the current state, bottlenecks and future directions.

Authors:  Damla Senol Cali; Jeremie S Kim; Saugata Ghose; Can Alkan; Onur Mutlu
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 11.622

6.  Metagenome SNP calling via read-colored de Bruijn graphs.

Authors:  Bahar Alipanahi; Martin D Muggli; Musa Jundi; Noelle R Noyes; Christina Boucher
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 6.937

Review 7.  Chemical shift-based methods in NMR structure determination.

Authors:  Santrupti Nerli; Andrew C McShan; Nikolaos G Sgourakis
Journal:  Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc       Date:  2018-03-11       Impact factor: 9.795

8.  HLMethy: a machine learning-based model to identify the hidden labels of m6A candidates.

Authors:  Ze Liu; Wei Dong; WenJie Luo; Wei Jiang; QuanWu Li; ZiLi He
Journal:  Plant Mol Biol       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 4.076

Review 9.  Genomic Tackling of Human Satellite DNA: Breaking Barriers through Time.

Authors:  Mariana Lopes; Sandra Louzada; Margarida Gama-Carvalho; Raquel Chaves
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  LazyB: fast and cheap genome assembly.

Authors:  Thomas Gatter; Sarah von Löhneysen; Jörg Fallmann; Polina Drozdova; Tom Hartmann; Peter F Stadler
Journal:  Algorithms Mol Biol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 1.405

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.