Assemblathon 2 Paper is Available at Arxiv !!

Notes.

1. Please check here for various commentaries on Assemblathon paper.

2. Please follow this link. Supplements are available here.

-———————-

Assemblathon 2: evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species

Background - The process of generating raw genome sequence data continues to become cheaper, faster, and more accurate. However, assembly of such data into high-quality, finished genome sequences remains challenging. Many genome assembly tools are available, but they differ greatly in terms of their performance (speed, scalability, hardware requirements, acceptance of newer read technologies) and in their final output (composition of assembled sequence). More importantly, it remains largely unclear how to best assess the quality of assembled genome sequences. The Assemblathon competitions are intended to assess current state-of-the-art methods in genome assembly.

Results - In Assemblathon 2, we provided a variety of sequence data to be assembled for three vertebrate species (a bird, a fish, and snake). This resulted in a total of 43 submitted assemblies from 21 participating teams. We evaluated these assemblies using a combination of optical map data, Fosmid sequences, and several statistical methods. From over 100 different metrics, we chose ten key measures by which to assess the overall quality of the assemblies.

Conclusions - Many current genome assemblers produced useful assemblies, containing a significant representation of their genes, regulatory sequences, and overall genome structure. However, the high degree of variability between the entries suggests that there is still much room for improvement in the field of genome assembly and that approaches which work well in assembling the genome of one species may not necessarily work well for another.

Within the text, here is an important paragraph. To an outsider, it may read like ‘we do not have any clue, which assembler is the best’. However, when you read the entire paper, you will realize that it is because the qualities of all assemblers have come up so much that it is hard to call any one of them a clear winner. Only in case of snake, SGA stands out. Another observation - fish genomes were incredibly hard to assemble.

Lessons learned from Assemblathon 2

The clear take-home message from this exercise is the lack of consistency between assemblies in terms of interspecific as well as intraspecific comparisons. An assembler may produce an excellent assembly when judged by one approach, but a much poorer assembly when judged by another. The SGA snake assembly ranked 1st overall, but only ranked 1st in one individual

key metric, and ranked 5th and 7th in others. Even when an assembler performs well across a range of metrics in one species, it is no guarantee that this assembler will work as well with a different genome. The BCM-HGSC team produced the top ranking assembly for bird and fish but a much lower-ranked assembly for snake. Comparisons between the performance of the same assembler in different species are confounded by the different nature of the input

sequence data that was provided for each species.

Take home message from the paper -

Practical considerations for de novo genome assembly

Based on the findings of Assemblathon 2, we make a few broad suggestions to someone looking to perform a de novo assembly of a large eukaryotic genome:

1 Dont trust the results of a single assembly. If possible generate several assemblies (with different assemblers and/or different assembler parameters). Some of the best assemblies entered for Assemblathon 2 were the evaluation assemblies rather than the competition entries.

2 Dont place too much faith in a single metric. It is unlikely that we would have considered SGA to have produced the highest ranked snake assembly if we had only considered a single metric.

3 Potentially choose an assembler that excels in the area you are interested in (e.g. coverage, continuity, or number of error free bases).

4 If you are interested in generating a genome assembly for the purpose of genic analysis (e.g. training a gene finder, studying codon usage bias, looking for intron-specific motifs), then it may not be necessary to be concerned by low N50/NG50 values or by a small assembly size.

5 Assess the levels of heterozygosity in your target genome before you assemble (or sequence) it and set your expectations accordingly.

As you can imagine, this will not be our last post on the topic. This paper provides an incredible learning opportunity for anyone interested in assembling a genome.

One thing to note, Assemblathon is a competition to judge only the quality of the assembly, but two other metrics matter especially for us, poor researchers

• (i) time to assemble, (ii) cost of computer (RAM). Many assembly-related commentaries in our blog were written to address those issues. Please check Supplementary file 2 for server information from various groups.