4 ms·
HiCanu achieved that a year ago. WENGAN is a worse assembler with clearly more misassemblies. It amazes me that this level of paper can be published in Nature B
by acmj 6y ago
HiCanu achieved that a year ago. WENGAN is a worse assembler with clearly more misassemblies. It amazes me that this level of paper can be published in Nature Biotech.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- alextheparrot 6y agoThey even call it out in the paper, I hadn’t given it a thorough enough reading. Damn, they must’ve been a bit miffed. I think the novelty they're pitching is the lower resources, but I wonder how much of a problem that is in practice.
- acmj 6y agoSeveral recent assemblers are faster than WENGAN. For nanopore, there are shasta and wtdbg2 (both published). For HiFi, there are Peregrine and hifiasm (both unpublished but with preprints). I also found their phrasing here misleading: "The run time of WENGAN was at least 183 times faster than that of CANU (UL), while at the same time using less memory than other assemblers such as FLYE and SHASTA". Why not say the other way around (which is also a fact): The run time of WENGAN was at least several times slower than that of shasta, while at the same time using more memory than CANU. Come on, this is not the right way to do comparisons!