Also, GC: unique species in long-reads had higher GC. Conversely, unique species in short-reads had lower GC. The complete story here: https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-023-01557-3

89% LR MAGs with a full-length 16S rRNA (only 23% in SR MGs). We found unique species recovered using each technology. When we examined the presence of these unique MAGs in the opposite sequencing technology, they had low sequencing depth and low breadth of coverage. What else?

When comparing the same species (99% ANI) using SR and LR on the same sample, we found: less fragmented and slightly longer MAGs in LR metagenomes. Also, the taxonomic composition was, for the most part, the same. What are the differences then?

Are we going to get the same MAGs? For more than ten years, our department has examined the role of marine microbes in carbon cycling during algae blooms. We have relied on short-reads, but is using long-reads a game changer? A short thread 🧵 https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-023-01557-3

@daanspeth good luck! 😀

@alexcc 😅 wait, does it mean that we already have a definition for species then?