<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>

COPY SCRIPT

For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu

Comparison Of Oxford Nanopore Basecalling Tools

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Preprint , Other literature type 08 Nov 2017 English Publisher:Zenodo

Authors: Wick, Ryan R; Judd, Louise M; Holt, Kathryn E;

doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1163725 , 10.5281/zenodo.1082696 , 10.5281/zenodo.1188469 , 10.5281/zenodo.1043612 , 10.5281/zenodo.1134473 , 10.5281/zenodo.1043611

Comparison Of Oxford Nanopore Basecalling Tools

- Summary
- Related research
  (2)
- Metrics

Abstract

This repository uses a bacterial genome to assess the read accuracy and consensus sequence accuracy for Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) basecallers. Albacore v2.1.10, Guppy v0.3.0 and Scrappie raw v1.3.0 (all developed by ONT) were the best performers for read accuracy, and Chiron v0.3 produced the best assemblies. Consensus sequence accuracies reached approximately 99.75%, revealing that even the best basecallers still have systematic error. Nanopolish, used with its methylation-aware option, was able to raise consensus accuracy to about 99.9%. Most post-Nanopolish assemblies have similar accuracy, making basecaller choice relatively unimportant if Nanopolish is used.

Related Organizations

University of Melbourne
Australia

2 Research products, page of 1

Impact byBIP!

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	15
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%