Do we still need Illumina sequencing data? Evaluating Oxford Nanopore Technologies R10.4.1 flow cells and the Rapid v14 library prep kit for Gram negative bacteria whole genome assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The best whole genome assemblies are currently built from a combination of highly accurate short-read sequencing data and long-read sequencing data that can bridge repetitive and problematic regions. Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) produce long-read sequencing platforms and they are continually improving their technology to obtain higher quality read data that is approaching the quality obtained from short-read platforms such as Illumina. As these innovations continue, we evaluated how much ONT read coverage produced by the Rapid Barcoding Kit v14 (SQK-RBK114) is necessary to generate high-quality hybrid and long-read-only genome assemblies for a panel of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales bacterial isolates. We found that 30× long-read coverage is sufficient if Illumina data are available, and that more (at least 100× long-read coverage is recommended for long-read-only assemblies. Illumina polishing is still improving single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and INDELs in long-read-only assemblies. We also examined if antimicrobial resistance genes could be accurately identified in long-read-only data, and found that Flye assemblies regardless of ONT coverage detected >96% of resistance genes at 100% identity and length. Overall, the Rapid Barcoding Kit v14 and long-read-only assemblies can be an optimal sequencing strategy (i.e., plasmid characterization and AMR detection) but finer-scale analyses (i.e., SNV) still benefit from short-read data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".