Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Errors in long-read assemblies can critically affect protein prediction

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 124–126 (2019)Cite this article

To the Editor — Long-read, single molecule sequencing technologies are now routinely used to sequence and assemble the human genome1,2,3. These studies represent an important advance and highlight the value of using long-read technologies to aid genome assembly—particularly in the complex regions that have challenged short-read methods for over a decade. However, even after multiple rounds of correction, long-read assemblies can contain errors in protein coding regions that can substantially alter, and often truncate, protein predictions.

Cheap, high-throughput short-read sequencing technologies4 have revolutionized biological research5. However, these technologies often result in incomplete and highly fragmented assemblies6, making their application to large, complex genome assembly challenging. It has long been realized7 that accurate assembly requires reads that are longer than the longest repeat region, with sufficient depth and accuracy to detect overlaps between those reads.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Pendleton, M. et al. Nat. Methods 12, 780–786 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Koren, S. et al. Genome Res. 27, 722–736 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jain, M. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 338–345 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Watson, M. Genome Biol. 15, 108 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodwin, S., Mcpherson, J. D. & Mccombie, W. R. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 333–351 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradnam, K. R. et al. Gigascience 2, 10 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Myers, E. W. Bioinformatics 21 (Suppl. 2), ii79–ii85 (2005).

  8. Eid, J. et al. Science 323, 133–138 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Loman, N. J. & Watson, M. Nat. Methods 12, 303–304 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chin, C.-S. et al. Nat. Methods 10, 563–569 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Loman, N. J., Quick, J. & Simpson, J. T. Nat. Methods 12, 733–735 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Walker, B. J. et al. PLoS One 9, e112963 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Treangen, T. J. & Salzberg, S. L. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 36–46 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pop, M. & Salzberg, S. L. Trends Genet. 24, 142–149 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Phillippy, A. M., Schatz, M. C. & Pop, M. Genome Biol. 9, R55 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gajer, P., Schatz, M. & Salzberg, S. L. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 562–569 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Salzberg, S. L. & Yorke, J. A. Bioinformatics 21, 4320–4321 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jain, M. et al. Nat. Methods 12, 351–356 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Weirather, J. L. et al. F1000Res. 6, 100 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gnerre, S. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1513–1518 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Steinberg, K. M. et al. Genome Res. 24, 2066–2076 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kapustin, Y., Souvorov, A., Tatusova, T. & Lipman, D. Biol. Direct 3, 20 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider, V. A. et al. Genome Res. 27, 849–864 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Quick, J., Quinlan, A. R. & Loman, N. J. Gigascience 3, 22 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Risse, J. et al. Gigascience 4, 60 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koren, S. & Phillippy, A. M. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 23, 110–120 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Koren, S. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 1174–1182 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Robert, C. & Watson, M. Genome Biol. 16, 177 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zook, J. M. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 246–251 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Florea, L., Souvorov, A., Kalbfleisch, T. S. & Salzberg, S. L. PLoS One 6, e21400 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC; BB/P013732/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Genetics and Genomics, The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, UK

    Mick Watson & Amanda Warr

Authors
  1. Mick Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda Warr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mick Watson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Editor’s Note: This article has been peer-reviewed.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watson, M., Warr, A. Errors in long-read assemblies can critically affect protein prediction. Nat Biotechnol 37, 124–126 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-018-0004-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-018-0004-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing