TABLE 1 

Kernel comparison of Nonpareil estimates for publicly available data setsa

SampleIdentifierReferenceSize (Gbp)CPU time (min)% coverageRequired effort (Gbp)
AKAKAK
Posterior fornixSRS063417250.0115.70.0889840.0620.070
Stool sampleSRS015540250.324380.8581712.625.55
TongueSRS055495250.222860.6871613.226.08
LL 2011SRR94815532.954,39716.5847911.724.1
LL 2009ASRR096386261.171,4446.40686420.524.8
LL 2009BSRR096387261.121,4635.75706414.320.0
Iowa soilJGI 402461NAb14.622,806c49.056486621,051
  • a The two kernels (A, alignment; K, k-mer) were compared in terms of CPU time, estimated coverage, and projected required sequencing effort to reach 95% coverage of samples varying in complexity, including HMP (posterior fornix, tongue, stool sample), freshwater (Lake Lanier [LL]), and soil (Iowa continuous cornfield).

  • b NA, not available.

  • c CPU time was estimated for Iowa soil and observed in all other cases.