Dataset Information

Individual genome assembly from complex community short-read metagenomic datasets.

ABSTRACT: Assembling individual genomes from complex community metagenomic data remains a challenging issue for environmental studies. We evaluated the quality of genome assemblies from community short read data (Illumina 100 bp pair-ended sequences) using datasets recovered from freshwater and soil microbial communities as well as in silico simulations. Our analyses revealed that the genome of a single genotype (or species) can be accurately assembled from a complex metagenome when it shows at least about 20 × coverage. At lower coverage, however, the derived assemblies contained a substantial fraction of non-target sequences (chimeras), which explains, at least in part, the higher number of hypothetical genes recovered in metagenomic relative to genomic projects. We also provide examples of how to detect intrapopulation structure in metagenomic datasets and estimate the type and frequency of errors in assembled genes and contigs from datasets of varied species complexity.

SUBMITTER: Luo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3309356 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Individual genome assembly from complex community short-read metagenomic datasets.

Luo Chengwei C Tsementzi Despina D Kyrpides Nikos C NC Konstantinidis Konstantinos T KT

The ISME journal 20111027 4

Assembling individual genomes from complex community metagenomic data remains a challenging issue for environmental studies. We evaluated the quality of genome assemblies from community short read data (Illumina 100 bp pair-ended sequences) using datasets recovered from freshwater and soil microbial communities as well as in silico simulations. Our analyses revealed that the genome of a single genotype (or species) can be accurately assembled from a complex metagenome when it shows at least abou ...[more]

PMID: 22030673

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLong reads have gained popularity in the analysis of metagenomics data. Therefore, we comprehensively assessed metagenomics classification tools on the species taxonomic level. We analysed kmer-based tools, mapping-based tools and two general-purpose long reads mappers. We evaluated more than 20 pipelines which use either nucleotide or protein databases and selected 13 for an extensive benchmark. We prepared seven synthetic datasets to test various scenarios, including the presence of a host, unknown species and related species. Moreover, we used available sequencing data from three well-defined mock communities, including a dataset with abundance varying from 0.0001 to 20% and six real gut microbiomes.ResultsGeneral-purpose mappers Minimap2 and Ram achieved similar or better accuracy on most testing metrics than best-performing classification tools. They were up to ten times slower than the fastest kmer-based tools requiring up to four times less RAM. All tested tools were prone to report organisms not present in datasets, except CLARK-S, and they underperformed in the case of the high presence of the host's genetic material. Tools which use a protein database performed worse than those based on a nucleotide database. Longer read lengths made classification easier, but due to the difference in read length distributions among species, the usage of only the longest reads reduced the accuracy. The comparison of real gut microbiome datasets shows a similar abundance profiles for the same type of tools but discordance in the number of reported organisms and abundances between types. Most assessments showed the influence of database completeness on the reports.ConclusionThe findings indicate that kmer-based tools are well-suited for rapid analysis of long reads data. However, when heightened accuracy is essential, mappers demonstrate slightly superior performance, albeit at a considerably slower pace. Nevertheless, a combination of diverse categories of tools and databases will likely be necessary to analyse complex samples. Discrepancies observed among tools when applied to real gut datasets, as well as a reduced performance in cases where unknown species or a significant proportion of the host genome is present in the sample, highlight the need for continuous improvement of existing tools. Additionally, regular updates and curation of databases are important to ensure their effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundLong-read shotgun metagenomic sequencing is gaining in popularity and offers many advantages over short-read sequencing. The higher information content in long reads is useful for a variety of metagenomics analyses, including taxonomic classification and profiling. The development of long-read specific tools for taxonomic classification is accelerating, yet there is a lack of information regarding their relative performance. Here, we perform a critical benchmarking study using 11 methods, including five methods designed specifically for long reads. We applied these tools to several mock community datasets generated using Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) HiFi or Oxford Nanopore Technology sequencing, and evaluated their performance based on read utilization, detection metrics, and relative abundance estimates.ResultsOur results show that long-read classifiers generally performed best. Several short-read classification and profiling methods produced many false positives (particularly at lower abundances), required heavy filtering to achieve acceptable precision (at the cost of reduced recall), and produced inaccurate abundance estimates. By contrast, two long-read methods (BugSeq, MEGAN-LR & DIAMOND) and one generalized method (sourmash) displayed high precision and recall without any filtering required. Furthermore, in the PacBio HiFi datasets these methods detected all species down to the 0.1% abundance level with high precision. Some long-read methods, such as MetaMaps and MMseqs2, required moderate filtering to reduce false positives to resemble the precision and recall of the top-performing methods. We found read quality affected performance for methods relying on protein prediction or exact k-mer matching, and these methods performed better with PacBio HiFi datasets. We also found that long-read datasets with a large proportion of shorter reads (< 2 kb length) resulted in lower precision and worse abundance estimates, relative to length-filtered datasets. Finally, for classification methods, we found that the long-read datasets produced significantly better results than short-read datasets, demonstrating clear advantages for long-read metagenomic sequencing.ConclusionsOur critical assessment of available methods provides best-practice recommendations for current research using long reads and establishes a baseline for future benchmarking studies.

Project description:BackgroundShotgun metagenomics based on untargeted sequencing can explore the taxonomic profile and the function of unknown microorganisms in samples, and complement the shortage of amplicon sequencing. Binning assembled sequences into individual groups, which represent microbial genomes, is the key step and a major challenge in metagenomic research. Both supervised and unsupervised machine learning methods have been employed in binning. Genome binning belonging to unsupervised method clusters contigs into individual genome bins by machine learning methods without the assistance of any reference databases. So far a lot of genome binning tools have emerged. Evaluating these genome tools is of great significance to microbiological research. In this study, we evaluate 15 genome binning tools containing 12 original binning tools and 3 refining binning tools by comparing the performance of these tools on chicken gut metagenomic datasets and the first CAMI challenge datasets.ResultsFor chicken gut metagenomic datasets, original genome binner MetaBat, Groopm2 and Autometa performed better than other original binner, and MetaWrap combined the binning results of them generated the most high-quality genome bins. For CAMI datasets, Groopm2 achieved the highest purity (> 0.9) with good completeness (> 0.8), and reconstructed the most high-quality genome bins among original genome binners. Compared with Groopm2, MetaBat2 had similar performance with higher completeness and lower purity. Genome refining binners DASTool predicated the most high-quality genome bins among all genomes binners. Most genome binner performed well for unique strains. Nonetheless, reconstructing common strains still is a substantial challenge for all genome binner.ConclusionsIn conclusion, we tested a set of currently available, state-of-the-art metagenomics hybrid binning tools and provided a guide for selecting tools for metagenomic binning by comparing range of purity, completeness, adjusted rand index, and the number of high-quality reconstructed bins. Furthermore, available information for future binning strategy were concluded.

Dataset Information

Individual genome assembly from complex community short-read metagenomic datasets.

Publications

Individual genome assembly from complex community short-read metagenomic datasets.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets