Back

miniBUSCO: a faster and more accurate reimplementation of BUSCO

Huang, N.; Li, H.

2023-06-06 genomics
10.1101/2023.06.03.543588 bioRxiv
Show abstract

MotivationAssembly completeness evaluation of genome assembly is a critical assessment of the accuracy and reliability of genomic data. An incomplete assembly can lead to errors in gene predictions, annotation, and other downstream analyses. BUSCO is one of the most widely used tools for assessing the completeness of genome assembly by comparing the presence of a set of single-copy orthologs conserved across a wide range of taxa. However, the runtime of BUSCO can be long, particularly for some large genome assemblies. It is a challenge for researchers to quickly iterate the genome assemblies or analyze a large number of assemblies. ResultsHere, we present miniBUSCO, an efficient tool for assessing the completeness of genome assemblies. miniBUSCO utilizes the protein-to-genome aligner miniprot and the datasets of conserved orthologous genes from BUSCO. Our evaluation of the real human assembly indicates that miniBUSCO achieves a 14-fold speedup over BUSCO. Furthermore, miniBUSCO reports a more accurate completeness of 99.6% than BUSCOs completeness of 95.7%, which is in close agreement with the annotation completeness of 99.5% for T2T-CHM13. Availabilityhttps://github.com/huangnengCSU/minibusco. Contacthli@ds.dfci.harvard.edu Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
22.5%
Similar papers in this journal
2
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
8.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.8%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.8%
Similar papers in this journal
5
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
◐ 351 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
7
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
8
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
9
Gigabyte
● 62 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
10
Journal of Genetics and Genomics
○ 38 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
11
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.4%
12
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
14
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.5%
15
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
16
Genome Biology and Evolution
◐ 338 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
18
Molecular Ecology Resources
○ 171 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
Molecular Biology and Evolution
◐ 542 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
20
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
21
GENETICS
◐ 483 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Journal of Molecular Evolution
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
23
Scientific Data
○ 209 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
25
Database
◐ 61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
26
Peer Community Journal
● 281 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
188 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.6%
29
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 40%
0.6%
30
G3
◐ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.