Scinovex
article Open Access

CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes

Genome Research · 2015 · Vol. 25(7) · pp. 1043–1055
Donovan H. ParksMichael ImelfortConnor T. SkennertonPhilip HugenholtzGene W. Tyson

Abstract

Large-scale recovery of genomes from isolates, single cells, and metagenomic data has been made possible by advances in computational methods and substantial reductions in sequencing costs. Although this increasing breadth of draft genomes is providing key information regarding the evolutionary and functional diversity of microbial life, it has become impractical to finish all available reference genomes. Making robust biological inferences from draft genomes requires accurate estimates of their completeness and contamination. Current methods for assessing genome quality are ad hoc and generally make use of a limited number of "marker" genes conserved across all bacterial or archaeal genomes. Here we introduce CheckM, an automated method for assessing the quality of a genome using a broader set of marker genes specific to the position of a genome within a reference genome tree and information about the collocation of these genes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CheckM using synthetic data and a wide range of isolate-, single-cell-, and metagenome-derived genomes. CheckM is shown to provide accurate estimates of genome completeness and contamination and to outperform existing approaches. Using CheckM, we identify a diverse range of errors currently impacting publicly available isolate genomes and demonstrate that genomes obtained from single cells and metagenomic data vary substantially in quality. In order to facilitate the use of draft genomes, we propose an objective measure of genome quality that can be used to select genomes suitable for specific gene- and genome-centric analyses of microbial communities.

MeSH terms

MetagenomeMetagenomicsGenome, Microbial

Funding

  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Great Barrier Reef Foundation
  • Joint Genome Institute
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Australian Research Council
Citations
12,258
FWCI
field-weighted impact
References
47
Percentile
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
Uncultivated microbes in need of their own taxonomy
The ISME Journal · 2017 · 769 citations
Update on the proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY · 2024 · 428 citations
ContEst16S: an algorithm that identifies contaminated prokaryotic genomes using 16S RNA gene sequences
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY · 2017 · 542 citations
Best practices for analysing microbiomes
Nature Reviews Microbiology · 2018 · 1,823 citations
Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY · 2018 · 3,002 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.

CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes · Scinovex