Choice of Reference Sequence and Assembler for Alignment of Listeria monocytogenes Short-Read Sequence Data Greatly Influences Rates of Error in SNP Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wide availability of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and an abundance of open-source software have made detection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in bacterial genomes an increasingly accessible and effective tool for comparative analyses. Thus, ensuring that real nucleotide differences between genomes (i.e., true SNPs) are detected at high rates and that the influences of errors (such as false positive SNPs, ambiguously called sites, and gaps) are mitigated is of utmost importance. The choices researchers make regarding the generation and analysis of WGS data can greatly influence the accuracy of short-read sequence alignments and, therefore, the efficacy of such experiments. We studied the effects of some of these choices, including: i) depth of sequencing coverage, ii) choice of reference-guided short-read sequence assembler, iii) choice of reference genome, and iv) whether to perform read-quality filtering and trimming, on our ability to detect true SNPs and on the frequencies of errors. We performed benchmarking experiments, during which we assembled simulated and real Listeria monocytogenes strain 08-5578 short-read sequence datasets of varying quality with four commonly used assemblers (BWA, MOSAIK, Novoalign, and SMALT), using reference genomes of varying genetic distances, and with or without read pre-processing (i.e., quality filtering and trimming). We found that assemblies of at least 50-fold coverage provided the most accurate results. In addition, MOSAIK yielded the fewest errors when reads were aligned to a nearly identical reference genome, while using SMALT to align reads against a reference sequence that is ∼0.82% distant from 08-5578 at the nucleotide level resulted in the detection of the greatest numbers of true SNPs and the fewest errors. Finally, we show that whether read pre-processing improves SNP detection depends upon the choice of reference sequence and assembler. In total, this study demonstrates that researchers should test a variety of conditions to achieve optimal results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".