Skip to content
1887

Microbial Genomics logo Microbial Genomics

Volume 11, Issue 3

High intra-laboratory reproducibility of nanopore sequencing in bacterial species underscores advances in its accuracy Open Access

Abstract

Nanopore sequencing is a third-generation technology known for its portability, real-time analysis and ability to generate long reads. It has great potential for use in clinical diagnostics, but thorough validation is required to address accuracy concerns and ensure reliable and reproducible results. In this study, we automated an open-source workflow (freely available at https://gitlab.com/FLI_Bioinfo/nanobacta) for the assembly of Oxford Nanopore sequencing data and used it to investigate the reproducibility of assembly results under consistent conditions. We used a benchmark dataset of five bacterial reference strains and generated eight technical sequencing replicates of the same DNA using the Ligation and Rapid Barcoding kits together with the Flongle and MinION flow cells. We assessed reproducibility by measuring discrepancies such as substitution and insertion/deletion errors, analysing plasmid recovery results and examining genetic markers and clustering information. We compared the results of genome assemblies with and without short-read polishing. Our results show an average reproducibility accuracy of 99.999955% for nanopore-only assemblies and 99.999996% when the short reads were used for polishing. The genomic analysis results were highly reproducible for the nanopore-only assemblies without short read in the following areas: identification of genetic markers for antimicrobial resistance and virulence, classical MLST, taxonomic classification, genome completeness and contamination analysis. Interestingly, the clustering information results from the core genome SNP and core genome MLST analyses were also highly reproducible for the nanopore-only assemblies, with pairwise differences of up to two allele differences in core genome MLST and two SNPs in core genome SNP across replicates. After polishing the assemblies with short reads, the pairwise differences for cgMLST were 0 and for cgSNP were 0–1 SNP across replicates. These results highlight the advances in sequencing accuracy of nanopore data without the use of short reads.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): accuracy , assembly , clustering , genome , long read , nanopore sequencing and reproducibility
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut
    • Principal Award Recipient: Abdel-GlilMostafa
© 2025 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001372
2025-03-21
2026-02-07

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/11/3/mgen001372.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001372&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Wang Y, Yang Q, Wang Z. The evolution of nanopore sequencing. Front Genet 2014; 5:449 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Heather JM, Chain B. The sequence of sequencers: the history of sequencing DNA. Genomics 2016; 107:1–8 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Sereika M, Kirkegaard RH, Karst SM, Michaelsen TY, Sørensen EA et al. Oxford nanopore R10.4 long-read sequencing enables the generation of near-finished bacterial genomes from pure cultures and metagenomes without short-read or reference polishing. Nat Methods 2022; 19:823–826 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Simar SR, Hanson BM, Arias CA. Techniques in bacterial strain typing: past, present, and future. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2021; 34:339–345 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ip CLC, Loose M, Tyson JR, de Cesare M, Brown BL et al. MinION analysis and reference consortium: phase 1 data release and analysis. F1000Res 2015; 4:1075 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ni Y, Liu X, Simeneh ZM, Yang M, Li R. Benchmarking of Nanopore R10.4 and R9.4.1 flow cells in single-cell whole-genome amplification and whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2023; 21:2352–2364 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Amarasinghe SL, Su S, Dong X, Zappia L, Ritchie ME et al. Opportunities and challenges in long-read sequencing data analysis. Genome Biol 2020; 21:30 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Delahaye C, Nicolas J. Sequencing DNA with nanopores: troubles and biases. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0257521 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. van Belkum A, Tassios PT, Dijkshoorn L, Haeggman S, Cookson B et al. Guidelines for the validation and application of typing methods for use in bacterial epidemiology. Clin Microbiol Infect 2007; 13 Suppl 3:1–46 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dabernig-Heinz J, Lohde M, Hölzer M, Cabal A, Conzemius R et al. A multicenter study on accuracy and reproducibility of nanopore sequencing-based genotyping of bacterial pathogens. J Clin Microbiol 2024; 62:e00628–00624 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Sanderson ND, Hopkins KMV, Colpus M, Parker M, Lipworth S et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of bacterial genome reconstruction with oxford nanopore R10.4.1 long-read-only sequencing. Microb Genom 2024; 10:001246 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Mölder F, Jablonski KP, Letcher B, Hall MB, Tomkins-Tinch CH et al. Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake. F1000Res 2021; 10:33 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Foster-Nyarko E, Cottingham H, Wick RR, Judd LM, Lam MMC et al. Nanopore-only assemblies for genomic surveillance of the global priority drug-resistant pathogen, Klebsiella pneumoniae. Microb Genom 2023; 9:mgen000936 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hall MB, Wick RR, Judd LM, Nguyen ANT, Steinig EJ et al. Benchmarking Reveals Superiority of Deep Learning Variant Callers on Bacterial Nanopore Sequence Data eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd; 2024 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J et al. The sequence alignment/Map format and samtools. Bioinform 2009; 25:2078–2079 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Shen W, Le S, Li Y, Hu F. SeqKit: a cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0163962 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Coster W, Rademakers R. NanoPack2: population-scale evaluation of long-read sequencing data. Bioinform 2023; 39:btad311 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Wick RR, Judd LM, Cerdeira LT, Hawkey J, Méric G et al. Trycycler: consensus long-read assemblies for bacterial genomes. Genome Biol 2021; 22:266 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Wick RR, Judd LM, Holt KE. Assembling the perfect bacterial genome using oxford nanopore and illumina sequencing. PLoS Comput Biol 2023; 19:e1010905 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhou A, Lin T, Xing J. Evaluating nanopore sequencing data processing pipelines for structural variation identification. Genome Biol 2019; 20:237 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bouras G, Judd LM, Edwards RA, Vreugde S, Stinear TP et al. How low can you go? short-read polishing of oxford nanopore bacterial genome assemblies. Microb Genom 2024; 10:001254 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Wick R. Porechop: adapter trimmer for oxford nanopore reads. Github 2017 https://github.com/rrwick
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Wick R. Filtlong: quality filtering tool for long reads. GitHub 2017 https://github.com/rrwick
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Steinig E, Coin L. Nanoq: ultra-fast quality control for nanopore reads. J Open Source Softw 2022; 7:2991 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kolmogorov M, Yuan J, Lin Y, Pevzner PA. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol 2019; 37:540–546 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Bouras G, Grigson SR, Papudeshi B, Mallawaarachchi V, Roach MJ. Dnaapler: a tool to reorient circular microbial genomes. J Open Source Softw 2024; 9:5968 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Wick RR, Holt KE. Polypolish: short-read polishing of long-read bacterial genome assemblies. PLoS Comput Biol 2022; 18:e1009802 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinform 2018; 34:3094–3100 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. García-Alcalde F, Okonechnikov K, Carbonell J, Cruz LM, Götz S et al. Qualimap: evaluating next-generation sequencing alignment data. Bioinform 2012; 28:2678–2679 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Bouras G, Sheppard AE, Mallawaarachchi V, Vreugde S. Plassembler: an automated bacterial plasmid assembly tool. Bioinform 2023; 39:btad409 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Šošic M, Šikic M. Edlib: a C/C ++ library for fast, exact sequence alignment using edit distance. Bioinform 2017; 33:1394–1395 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol 2019; 20:257 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 2015; 25:1043–1055 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun 2018; 9:5114 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Schwengers O, Hain T, Chakraborty T, Goesmann A. ReferenceSeeker: rapid determination of appropriate reference genomes. Bioinform 2019863621 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jolley KA, Bray JE, Maiden MCJ. Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Wellcome Open Res 2018; 3:124 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Alcock BP, Huynh W, Chalil R, Smith KW, Raphenya AR et al. CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res 2023; 51:D690–D699 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zankari E, Hasman H, Cosentino S, Vestergaard M, Rasmussen S et al. Identification of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67:2640–2644 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Feldgarden M, Brover V, Haft DH, Prasad AB, Slotta DJ et al. Validating the AMRFinder tool and resistance gene database by using antimicrobial resistance genotype-phenotype correlations in a collection of isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019; 63:e00483–00419 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Gupta SK, Padmanabhan BR, Diene SM, Lopez-Rojas R, Kempf M et al. ARG-ANNOT, a new bioinformatic tool to discover antibiotic resistance genes in bacterial genomes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:212–220 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Doster E, Lakin SM, Dean CJ, Wolfe C, Young JG et al. MEGARes 2.0: a database for classification of antimicrobial drug, biocide and metal resistance determinants in metagenomic sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res 2020; 48:D561–D569 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25:3389–3402 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Larralde M. Pyrodigal: python bindings and interface to prodigal, an efficient method for gene prediction in prokaryotes. J Open Source Softw 2022; 7:4296 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Liu B, Zheng D, Jin Q, Chen L, Yang J. VFDB 2019: a comparative pathogenomic platform with an interactive web interface. Nucleic Acids Res 2019; 47:D687–D692 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Bessonov K, Laing C, Robertson J, Yong I, Ziebell K et al. ECTyper: in silico Escherichia coli serotype and species prediction from raw and assembled whole-genome sequence data. Microb Genom 2021; 7:000728 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Lam MMC, Wick RR, Watts SC, Cerdeira LT, Wyres KL et al. A genomic surveillance framework and genotyping tool for Klebsiella pneumoniae and its related species complex. Nat Commun 2021; 12:4188 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lam MMC, Wick RR, Judd LM, Holt KE, Wyres KL. Kaptive 2.0: updated capsule and lipopolysaccharide locus typing for the Klebsiella pneumoniae species complex. Microb Genom 2022; 8:000800 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Schwengers O, Jelonek L, Dieckmann MA, Beyvers S, Blom J et al. Bakta: rapid and standardized annotation of bacterial genomes via alignment-free sequence identification. Microb Genom 2021; 7:000685 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tonkin-Hill G, MacAlasdair N, Ruis C, Weimann A, Horesh G et al. Producing polished prokaryotic pangenomes with the panaroo pipeline. Genome Biol 2020; 21:180 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. R Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria; 2020 https://www.R-project.org
  51. Valiente-Mullor C, Beamud B, Ansari I, Francés-Cuesta C, García-González N et al. One is not enough: On the effects of reference genome for the mapping and subsequent analyses of short-reads. PLoS Comput Biol 2021; 17:e1008678 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Bush SJ, Foster D, Eyre DW, Clark EL, De Maio N et al. Genomic diversity affects the accuracy of bacterial single-nucleotide polymorphism-calling pipelines. Gigascience 2020; 9:giaa007 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gorrie CL, Da Silva AG, Ingle DJ, Higgs C, Seemann T et al. Key parameters for genomics-based real-time detection and tracking of multidrug-resistant bacteria: a systematic analysis. Lancet Microbe 2021; 2:e575–e583 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Silva M, Machado MP, Silva DN, Rossi M, Moran-Gilad J et al. chewBBACA: A complete suite for gene-by-gene schema creation and strain identification. Microb Genom 2018; 4:e000166 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhou Z, Alikhan NF, Mohamed K, Fan Y, Achtman M. The enterobase user’s guide, with case studies on salmonella transmissions, yersinia pestis phylogeny, and escherichia core genomic diversity. Genome Res 2020; 30:138–152
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Senthakumaran T, Brandal LT, Lindstedt BA, Jørgensen SB, Charnock C et al. Implications of stx loss for clinical diagnostics of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2018; 37:2361–2370 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Weber RE, Pietsch M, Frühauf A, Pfeifer Y, Martin M et al. IS26-mediated transfer of blaNDM–1 as the main route of resistance transmission during a polyclonal, multispecies outbreak in a German hospital. Front Microbiol 2019; 10:2817 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Piazza A, Comandatore F, Romeri F, Brilli M, Dichirico B et al. Identification of bla(VIM-1) gene in ST307 and ST661 klebsiella pneumoniae clones in italy: old acquaintances for new combinations. Microb Drug Resist 2019; 25:787–790
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Higgins PG, Prior K, Harmsen D, Seifert H. Development and evaluation of a core genome multilocus typing scheme for whole-genome sequence-based typing of Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0179228 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Savin C, Le Guern A-S, Chereau F, Guglielmini J, Heuzé G et al. First description of a yersinia pseudotuberculosis clonal outbreak in France, confirmed using a new core genome multilocus sequence typing method. Microbiol Spectr 2022; 10:e0114522 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Hyatt D, Chen G-L, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:119 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhou Z, Alikhan N-F, Sergeant MJ, Luhmann N, Vaz C et al. GrapeTree: visualization of core genomic relationships among 100,000 bacterial pathogens. Genome Res 2018; 28:1395–1404 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Avershina E, Frye SA, Ali J, Taxt AM, Ahmad R. Ultrafast and cost-effective pathogen identification and resistance gene detection in a clinical setting using nanopore flongle sequencing. Front Microbiol 2022; 13:822402 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Lohde M, Wagner GE, Dabernig-Heinz J, Viehweger A, Braun SD et al. Accurate bacterial outbreak tracing with oxford nanopore sequencing and reduction of methylation-induced errors. BioRxiv2023 2024 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Quainoo S, Coolen JPM, van Hijum SAFT, Huynen MA, Melchers WJG et al. Whole-genome sequencing of bacterial pathogens: the future of nosocomial outbreak analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2017; 30:1015–1063 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Lüth S, Kleta S, Al Dahouk S. Whole genome sequencing as a typing tool for foodborne pathogens like Listeria monocytogenes – The way towards global harmonisation and data exchange. Trends Food Sci Technol 2018; 73:67–75 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Hall MB. Rasusa: randomly subsample sequencing reads to a specified coverage. J Open Source Softw 2022; 7:3941 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Vaser R, Šikić M. Time- and memory-efficient genome assembly with raven. Nat Comput Sci 2021; 1:332–336 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Johnson J, Soehnlen M, Blankenship HM. Long read genome assemblers struggle with small plasmids. Microb Genom 2023; 9:mgen001024 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Li H. Minimap and miniasm: fast mapping and de novo assembly for noisy long sequences. Bioinform 2016; 32:2103–2110 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Koren S, Walenz BP, Berlin K, Miller JR, Bergman NH et al. Canu: scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res 2017; 27:722–736 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Wick RR, Judd LM, Wyres KL, Holt KE. Recovery of small plasmid sequences via oxford nanopore sequencing. Microb Genom 2021; 7:000631 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Alves-Barroco C, Brito PH, Santos-Sanches I, Fernandes AR. Phylogenetic analysis and accessory genome diversity reveal insight into the evolutionary history of Streptococcus dysgalactiae. Front Microbiol 2022; 13:952110 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. McNally A, Oren Y, Kelly D, Pascoe B, Dunn S et al. Combined analysis of variation in core, accessory and regulatory genome regions provides a super-resolution view into the evolution of bacterial populations. PLoS Genet 2016; 12:e1006280 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001372
Loading
High intra-laboratory reproducibility of nanopore sequencing in bacterial species underscores advances in its accuracy
M Gen 11, 001372 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.001372
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001372
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001372
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Supplementary material 2

EXCEL

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error