A Read-mapping confidence versus repeat-copy similarity. As the similarity between two copies of a repeat increases, the confidence in any read placement within the repeat decreases. At the top of the figure, we show three different tandem repeats with two copies each. Directly beneath these tandem repeats are reads that are sequenced from these regions. For each tandem repeat, we have highlighted and zoomed in on a single read. Starting with the leftmost read (red) from tandem repeat X, we have low confidence when mapping this read within the tandem repeat, because it aligns equally well to both X₁ and X₂. In the middle example (tandem repeat Y, green), we have a higher confidence in the mapping owing to a single nucleotide difference, making the alignment to Y₁ slightly better than Y₂. In the rightmost example, the blue read that is sequenced from tandem repeat Z aligns perfectly to Z₁, whereas its alignment to Z₂ contains three mismatches, giving us a high confidence when mapping the read to Z₁. B | Ambiguity in read mapping. The 13 bp read shown along the bottom maps to two locations, a and b, where there is a mismatch at location a and a deletion at b. If mismatches are considered to be less costly, then the alignment program will put the read in location a. However, the source DNA might have a true deletion in location b, meaning that the true position of the read is b.

The shaded rectangles at the top represent intervals along a chromosome. The two blue rectangles below each region represent an identical two-copy repeat containing the paralogous genes A and B. The small orange bars represent reads aligned to specific positions. a | The ‘unique’ strategy reports only those reads that are uniquely mappable. Because A and B are identical, no alignments are reported. b | The ‘best match’ alignment strategy reports the best possible alignment for each read, which is determined by the scoring function of the alignment algorithm. In the case of ties, this strategy randomly distributes reads across equally good loci, as shown here. c | The ‘all matches’ strategy simply reports all alignments for each multi-read, including lower-scoring alignments.

A | Rearrangement assembly error caused by repeats. Aa | An example assembly graph involving six contigs, two of which are identical (R₁ and R₂). The arrows shown below each contig represent the reads that are aligned to it. Ab | The true assembly of two contigs, showing mate-pair constraints for the red, blue and green paired reads. Ac | Two incorrectly assembled chimeric contigs caused by the repetitive regions R₁ and R₂. Note that all reads align perfectly to the misassembled contigs, but the mate-pair constraints are violated. B | A collapsed tandem repeat. Ba | The assembly graph contains four contigs, where R₁ and R₂ are identical repeats. Bb | The true assembly, showing mate-pair constraints for the red and blue paired reads, which are oriented correctly and spaced the correct distance apart. Bc | A misassembly that is caused by collapsing repeats R₁ and R₂ on top of each other. Read alignments remain consistent, but mate-pair distances are compressed. A different misassembly of this region might reverse the order of R₁ and R₂. C | A collapsed interspersed repeat. Ca | The assembly graph contains five contigs, where R₁ and R₂ are identical repeats. Cb | In the correct assembly, R₁ and R₂ are separated by a unique sequence. Cc | The two copies of the repeat are collapsed onto one another. The unique sequence is then left out of the assembly and appears as an isolated contig with partial repeats on its flank.

Each point represents the scaffold N50 size of an assembly of the potato genome that was built using paired-end reads from inserts of a specific size and smaller. Successive points moving from left to right used all previous data plus one additional, longer paired-end library size, which is plotted on the y axis. With the addition of the final, 20 kb library, the scaffold N50 size reached 1.3 Mb. The data in this figure are taken from REF. 56.