Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/envgen

Effective July 10, 2023, NCBI’s Assembly and Genome record pages now redirect to new NCBI Datasets pages. As previously announced, these updates are part of our ongoing effort to modernize and improve your user experience. NCBI Datasets is a new resource that makes it easier to find and download genome data.   

The following pages have been updated:

• The NCBI Assembly record pages now redirect to the new NCBI Datasets Genome record pages that describe assembled genomes and provide links to related NCBI tools such as Genome Data Viewer and BLAST.  
• The NCBI Genome record pages now redirect to the NCBI Datasets Taxonomy record pages that provide a taxonomy-focused portal to genes, genomes, and additional NCBI resources.   

During this transition, you will have the option to return to the legacy Genome and Assembly record pages. We will remove the legacy pages in early 2024.  

What is Genome Assembly?

Genome assembly involves piecing together short DNA sequence reads generated by sequencing platforms (e.g., Illumina, PacBio, Oxford Nanopore) into longer, contiguous sequences called contigs. This can be performed as:

• De Novo Assembly: Without a reference genome.
• Reference-Guided Assembly: Using a reference genome to guide the assembly process.

Step 1: Preparing Your Data

Before starting the assembly, ensure that your raw sequencing data is high quality.

1. Input Data

   • Short Reads: Illumina sequencing generates short, accurate reads ideal for scaffolding.
   • Long Reads: PacBio and Nanopore sequencing provide long reads for resolving repetitive regions.

2. Quality Control (QC)
   Use tools like FastQC or MultiQC to assess the quality of your reads:

   fastqc reads.fastq multiqc .

   Look for issues like low-quality bases, adapter contamination, or overrepresented sequences.

3. Read Trimming and Filtering
   Trim low-quality bases and adapters using Trimmomatic or Cutadapt:

   trimmomatic PE reads_R1.fastq reads_R2.fastq trimmed_R1.fastq trimmed_R2.fastq \ ILLUMINACLIP:adapters.fa:2:30:10 LEADING:3 TRAILING:3 SLIDINGWINDOW:4:20 MINLEN:36

Step 2: Choosing an Assembly Strategy

Select an assembly strategy based on your data type:

• Short-Read Assemblers:

  • SPAdes: Popular for microbial genomes.
  • Velvet: Fast for smaller genomes.

• Long-Read Assemblers:

  • Canu: Ideal for long-read datasets.
  • Flye: Versatile for small and large genomes.

• Hybrid Assemblers:

  • MaSuRCA: Combines short and long reads.
  • Unicycler: Optimized for bacterial genomes.

Step 3: Running the Assembly

3.1. SPAdes (Short-Read Assembly)

SPAdes is an excellent choice for small genomes, such as bacteria.

The output includes assembled contigs (contigs.fasta) and scaffolds (scaffolds.fasta).

3.2. Canu (Long-Read Assembly)

Canu is designed for high-error long reads from PacBio or Nanopore.

The output will be in canu_output/genome.contigs.fasta.

3.3. Hybrid Assembly with Unicycler

Unicycler combines short and long reads for improved assemblies.

Step 4: Assessing Assembly Quality

After assembly, evaluate its quality using the following tools:

1. QUAST
   QUAST generates assembly statistics, such as N50, genome size, and GC content:

   quast contigs.fasta -o quast_output

2. BUSCO
   BUSCO checks genome completeness by identifying conserved genes:

   busco -i contigs.fasta -o busco_output -l fungi_odb10 -m genome

3. Assembly Graph Visualization
   Visualize assembly graphs with Bandage:

   Bandage load assembly_graph.gfa

Step 5: Post-Assembly Steps

1. Polishing
   Improve assembly accuracy using tools like Pilon (for short reads) or Racon (for long reads).

   racon long_reads.fasta mapped_reads.sam contigs.fasta > polished_contigs.fasta

2. Scaffolding
   Link contigs into scaffolds using tools like SSPACE or Opera-LG if required.

3. Annotation
   Annotate the assembled genome using Prokka for prokaryotes or Maker for eukaryotes.

   prokka --outdir annotation_output --prefix genome contigs.fasta

Step 6: Sharing and Archiving

1. Submit to Public Repositories
   Share your assembly in databases like NCBI GenBank, ENA, or DDBJ.

2. Metadata Preparation
   Include detailed metadata for your submission, such as organism name, sequencing platform, and coverage.

Best Practices

• Always perform quality checks at each stage to ensure data integrity.
• Use multiple tools to cross-validate results when working with complex genomes.
• Document parameters and software versions for reproducibility.

Conclusion

Genome assembly is a powerful process that transforms raw sequencing data into a coherent representation of an organism’s genome. By following this step-by-step guide, you can successfully assemble genomes and uncover valuable biological insights. Whether you’re assembling a microbial genome or tackling the complexities of a eukaryotic genome, these tools and strategies will set you on the path to success.

Key Findings:

1. Chromosomal Fusion and Its Molecular Signature:

   • The fusion site is located at 2q13–2q14.1 and is characterized by degenerate telomeric sequences appearing interstitially, indicating the historical head-to-head joining of ancestral chromosomes.
   • Despite being a signature of a past fusion event, these telomeric repeats are no longer functional and have undergone sequence degradation over time.

2. Extensive Duplications in the Surrounding Genomic Region:

   • The study identifies large-scale segmental duplications flanking the fusion site, with several of these regions duplicated and scattered across multiple chromosomes.
   • These duplications are predominantly located in subtelomeric and pericentromeric regions, suggesting their role in genomic instability and chromosomal evolution.

3. Paralogous Regions and Their Evolutionary Relationships:

   • A 168-kilobase (kb) segment near the fusion site has 98%–99% sequence identity with three regions on chromosome 9 (9pter, 9p11.2, and 9q13).
   • Another 67-kb region distal to the fusion site shows a high degree of homology to sequences in chromosome 22qter.
   • Additionally, a 100-kb segment exhibits 96% sequence identity with a region in chromosome 2q11.2.

4. Comparative Genomics and Evolutionary Implications:

   • By comparing the duplicated sequences and their arrangement in primates, the researchers traced the order of duplication events leading to their present distribution.
   • The presence of specific repetitive elements within these duplicated segments serves as evolutionary markers that help infer their historical rearrangements.
   • Some of these duplicated regions are associated with chromosomal inversion breakpoints, potentially contributing to evolutionary changes in primates.
   • Recurrent structural rearrangements in these regions have been linked to human chromosomal disorders.

Conclusions and Implications:

• The findings provide valuable insights into the structural evolution of human chromosome 2, which played a crucial role in human speciation.
• Understanding these segmental duplications and their evolutionary trajectories sheds light on genomic instability, which may contribute to human genetic diseases.
• The study highlights how large-scale chromosomal rearrangements, such as fusion and duplication, have influenced the evolutionary divergence of humans from other primates.

This research advances our understanding of human genome evolution and offers a foundation for studying the effects of structural variants in genetic disorders.

Scientists face a big challenge with the human genome. They can read its letters, but understanding their roles is much harder. Only about 2 percent of the genome codes for proteins. The rest acts like a huge control panel, deciding when and where genes turn on. With about 9 billion possible single-letter changes, testing them all in a lab just isn’t possible.

So, Google DeepMind asked a new question: what if we could predict what those changes might do?

This question led to the AlphaGenome Atlas (https://deepmind.google.com/science/alphagenome/atlas?), a detailed map of nearly every possible single-letter change in the human genome. Instead of checking each change one by one, researchers can use the Atlas to spot the ones most likely to matter. The AlphaGenome Variant Impact (AVI) score works like a trail marker, pointing scientists toward the changes worth a closer look.

This is where the Atlas gets especially useful. Much of the genome lies outside the protein-coding regions, where DNA acts as a switch or controller for genes. AlphaGenome lets researchers explore these areas and see how small changes could affect gene activity.

An atlas isn't the destination; it's a guide.

The AlphaGenome Atlas doesn’t replace experiments or solve every mystery. Instead, it helps scientists decide where to begin. From billions of possibilities, it turns the vast genetic landscape into something researchers can start to explore.

There are nine billion possibilities, a vast map, and maybe among them therWith nine billion possibilities and a huge map to explore, there may be clues hidden here to some of medicine’s toughest mysteries.

More at https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/DeepMind.com/Blog/alphagenome-atlas-a-predictive-map-of-every-possible-dna-letter-change-in-the-human-genome/alphagenome-atlas.pdf

A recent study published in Genome Biology (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13059-026-04280-y) addressed this challenge by introducing dicast (https://github.com/burgshrimps/dicast), a machine-learning approach for detecting structural variants in short-read sequencing data. Structural variants, such as large deletions, insertions, duplications, and inversions, can have significant biological and clinical implications, yet they are challenging to identify with short-read technologies. Because different detection methods frequently yield divergent results, researchers commonly employ consensus calling, considering a variant valid only if multiple tools detect it. While this approach reduces false positives, it relies on the potentially flawed assumption that the majority is always correct.

The researchers explored the impact of evaluating the supporting evidence for each variant, rather than simply tallying the number of algorithms that identified it. To establish a ground truth, they analyzed nine genomes using multiple sequencing technologies and 15 detection methods, initially identifying approximately 35 million potential variants. Through extensive filtering, evidence integration, and manual review of over 11,500 variants, they developed a robust benchmark comprising more than 236,000 structural variants. The findings underscored the complexity of the problem: short-read methods detected fewer than half of deletions and less than 10 percent of insertions, with performance declining markedly in repetitive genomic regions. In contrast, long-read technologies demonstrated superior detection capabilities. However, replacing the substantial volume of existing short-read data in clinical and research settings is not immediately feasible. Consequently, the researchers questioned whether short-read data might harbor more information than conventional analytical pipelines currently extract.

This line of inquiry led to the development of dicast. Rather than merely confirming agreement among multiple tools, dicast identifies patterns in sequencing data, including split and clipped reads, discordant read pairs, alignment characteristics, and the surrounding genomic context. An XGBoost machine-learning model evaluates which combinations of these signals are indicative of genuine structural variants. Thus, the approach shifts from tallying algorithmic consensus to interpreting the underlying evidence.

The researchers subsequently conducted a targeted evaluation by examining structural variants detected by only a single short-read tool, which are typically missed by consensus-based approaches. dicast successfully recovered approximately 81% of these single-caller deletions, insertions, and duplications. The signals for these variants were present in the data, but conventional filtering methods failed to integrate them effectively.

The utility of dicast was further demonstrated in cohorts with rare diseases, including congenital limb malformations, atrial fibrillation, and neuromuscular disorders. In one instance, dicast achieved a deletion recall rate of approximately 0.96, compared to 0.74 using consensus calling. The median number of variants requiring manual review was 29 per sample. Among 31 experimentally validated variants that standard filters would have missed, dicast identified 12, whereas consensus calling detected only one.

Overall, dicast identified approximately 20 percent more potential disease-causing deletions than consensus-based methods. While a 20 percent increase may appear modest, in clinical genomics such improvements can have significant practical implications. Missing a deletion may leave a case unresolved, whereas detecting a structural variant can provide critical diagnostic insights.

The study does not claim that machine learning has rendered short-read sequencing superior to long-read approaches. Instead, the results underscore the effectiveness of long-read sequencing for structural variant detection. However, dicast highlights a more nuanced perspective: substantial biological information may still be recoverable from the extensive short-read datasets already available.

The principal lesson extends beyond the detection of structural variants. For many years, bioinformatics pipelines have relied on threshold-based criteria, such as minimum coverage, quality scores, or support from multiple tools. While these rules are useful, biological phenomena do not always conform to rigid checklists; multiple weak signals, when considered collectively, can provide compelling evidence.

This perspective prompts consideration of the solitary variant: one algorithm identifies it, while several others do not. Traditional consensus techniques might have dismissed it, yet machine learning approaches evaluate the available evidence to determine whether the variant is plausible.

Occasionally, the most significant variant within a genome is the one that is almost universally overlooked.

Read more at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13059-026-04280-y

mixtureS that can de novo identify bacterial strains from shotgun reads of a clonal or metagenomic sample, without prior knowledge about the strains and their variations. Tested on 243 simulated datasets and 195 experimental datasets, mixtureS reliably identified the strains, their numbers and their abundance. Compared with three tools, mixtureS showed better performance in almost all simulated datasets and the vast majority of experimental datasets.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~xiaoman/mixtureS/

Following are the weblink for different available browsers:

http://www.ensembl.org/index.html

http://ensemblgenomes.org/

http://genome.ucsc.edu/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/genomes/

http://flybase.org/

http://cmr.jcvi.org/tigr-scripts/CMR/CmrHomePage.cgi

http://www.sanger.ac.uk/resources/databases/

Address of the bookmark: https://www.kegg.jp/blastkoala/