Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Comparison of long-read sequencing technologies in the hybrid assembly of complex bacterial genomes

Nicola De Maio, Liam P. Shaw, Alasdair Hubbard, Sophie George, Nick Sanderson, Jeremy Swann, Ryan Wick, Manal AbuOun, Emma Stubberfield, Sarah J. Hoosdally, Derrick W. Crook, Timothy E. A. Peto, Anna E. Sheppard, Mark J. Bailey, Daniel S. Read, Muna F. Anjum, A. Sarah Walker, View ORCID ProfileNicole Stoesser, on behalf of the REHAB consortium
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/530824
Nicola De Maio
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liam P. Shaw
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alasdair Hubbard
2Department of Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sophie George
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
3HPRU IHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nick Sanderson
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeremy Swann
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan Wick
4Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manal AbuOun
5Department of Bacteriology, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emma Stubberfield
5Department of Bacteriology, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah J. Hoosdally
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Derrick W. Crook
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
3HPRU IHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy E. A. Peto
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
3HPRU IHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna E. Sheppard
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
3HPRU IHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark J. Bailey
6Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel S. Read
6Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Muna F. Anjum
5Department of Bacteriology, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Sarah Walker
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
3HPRU IHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicole Stoesser
1Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicole Stoesser
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Illumina sequencing allows rapid, cheap and accurate whole genome bacterial analyses, but short reads (<300 bp) do not usually enable complete genome assembly. Long read sequencing greatly assists with resolving complex bacterial genomes, particularly when combined with short-read Illumina data (hybrid assembly). However, it is not clear how different long-read sequencing methods impact on assembly accuracy. Relative automation of the assembly process is also crucial to facilitating high-throughput complete bacterial genome reconstruction, avoiding multiple bespoke filtering and data manipulation steps. In this study, we compared hybrid assemblies for 20 bacterial isolates, including two reference strains, using Illumina sequencing and long reads from either Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) or from SMRT Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) sequencing platforms. We chose isolates from the Enterobacteriaceae family, as these frequently have highly plastic, repetitive genetic structures and complete genome reconstruction for these species is relevant for a precise understanding of the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance. We de novo assembled genomes using the hybrid assembler Unicycler and compared different read processing strategies. Both strategies facilitate high-quality genome reconstruction. Combining ONT and Illumina reads fully resolved most genomes without additional manual steps, and at a lower consumables cost per isolate in our setting. Automated hybrid assembly is a powerful tool for complete and accurate bacterial genome assembly.

IMPACT STATEMENT Illumina short-read sequencing is frequently used for tasks in bacterial genomics, such as assessing which species are present within samples, checking if specific genes of interest are present within individual isolates, and reconstructing the evolutionary relationships between strains. However, while short-read sequencing can reveal significant detail about the genomic content of bacterial isolates, it is often insufficient for assessing genomic structure: how different genes are arranged within genomes, and particularly which genes are on plasmids – potentially highly mobile components of the genome frequently carrying antimicrobial resistance elements. This is because Illumina short reads are typically too short to span repetitive structures in the genome, making it impossible to accurately reconstruct these repetitive regions. One solution is to complement Illumina short reads with long reads generated with SMRT Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) or Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing platforms. Using this approach, called ‘hybrid assembly’, we show that we can automatically fully reconstruct complex bacterial genomes of Enterobacteriaceae isolates in the majority of cases (best-performing method: 17/20 isolates). In particular, by comparing different methods we find that using the assembler Unicycler with Illumina and ONT reads represents a low-cost, high-quality approach for reconstructing bacterial genomes using publicly available software.

DATA SUMMARY Raw sequencing data and assemblies have been deposited in NCBI under BioProject Accession PRJNA422511 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA422511). We confirm all supporting data, code and protocols have been provided within the article or through supplementary data files.

  • ABBREVIATIONS

    ONT
    :Oxford Nanopore Technologies
    PacBio
    :Pacific Biosciences
    SNP
    :single nucleotide polymorphism
    AMR
    :antimicrobial resistance
  • Copyright 
    The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
    Back to top
    PreviousNext
    Posted January 28, 2019.
    Download PDF

    Supplementary Material

    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

    NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Comparison of long-read sequencing technologies in the hybrid assembly of complex bacterial genomes
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Share
    Comparison of long-read sequencing technologies in the hybrid assembly of complex bacterial genomes
    Nicola De Maio, Liam P. Shaw, Alasdair Hubbard, Sophie George, Nick Sanderson, Jeremy Swann, Ryan Wick, Manal AbuOun, Emma Stubberfield, Sarah J. Hoosdally, Derrick W. Crook, Timothy E. A. Peto, Anna E. Sheppard, Mark J. Bailey, Daniel S. Read, Muna F. Anjum, A. Sarah Walker, Nicole Stoesser, on behalf of the REHAB consortium
    bioRxiv 530824; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/530824
    Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
    Citation Tools
    Comparison of long-read sequencing technologies in the hybrid assembly of complex bacterial genomes
    Nicola De Maio, Liam P. Shaw, Alasdair Hubbard, Sophie George, Nick Sanderson, Jeremy Swann, Ryan Wick, Manal AbuOun, Emma Stubberfield, Sarah J. Hoosdally, Derrick W. Crook, Timothy E. A. Peto, Anna E. Sheppard, Mark J. Bailey, Daniel S. Read, Muna F. Anjum, A. Sarah Walker, Nicole Stoesser, on behalf of the REHAB consortium
    bioRxiv 530824; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/530824

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Subject Area

    • Bioinformatics
    Subject Areas
    All Articles
    • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4086)
    • Biochemistry (8761)
    • Bioengineering (6479)
    • Bioinformatics (23339)
    • Biophysics (11750)
    • Cancer Biology (9149)
    • Cell Biology (13246)
    • Clinical Trials (138)
    • Developmental Biology (7416)
    • Ecology (11369)
    • Epidemiology (2066)
    • Evolutionary Biology (15087)
    • Genetics (10398)
    • Genomics (14009)
    • Immunology (9120)
    • Microbiology (22040)
    • Molecular Biology (8779)
    • Neuroscience (47360)
    • Paleontology (350)
    • Pathology (1420)
    • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2482)
    • Physiology (3704)
    • Plant Biology (8050)
    • Scientific Communication and Education (1431)
    • Synthetic Biology (2208)
    • Systems Biology (6016)
    • Zoology (1249)