Recovering Escherichia coli plasmids in the absence of long-read sequencing data

The incidence of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli strains has risen in the past years. Antibiotic resistance in E. coli is often mediated by acquisition and maintenance of plasmids. The study of E. coli plasmid epidemiology and genomics often requires long-read sequencing information, but recently a number of tools that allow plasmid prediction from short-read data have been developed. Here, we reviewed 25 available plasmid prediction tools and categorized them into binary plasmid/chromosome classification tools and plasmid reconstruction tools. We benchmarked six tools that aim to reliably reconstruct distinct plasmids, with a special focus on plasmids carrying antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes. They use either assembly graph information (plasmidSPAdes, gplas), reference databases (MOB-Suite, FishingForPlasmids) or both (HyAsP and SCAPP) to produce plasmid predictions. The benchmark data set consisted of 240 E. coli strains, harboring 631 plasmids, which were representative for the diversity of E. coli in public databases. Notably, these strains were not used for training any of the tools. We found that two thirds (n=425, 66.3.%) of all plasmids were correctly reconstructed by at least one of the six tools, with a range of 92 (14.58%) to 317 (50.23%) correctly predicted plasmids. However, the majority of plasmids that carried antibiotic resistance genes (n=85, 57.8%) could not be completely recovered as distinct plasmids by any of the tools. MOB-suite was the only tool that was able to correctly reconstruct the majority of plasmids (n=317, 50.23%), and performed best at reconstructing large plasmids (n=166, 46.37%) and ARG-plasmids (n=41, 27.9%), but predictions frequently contained chromosome contamination (40%). In contrast, plasmidSPAdes reconstructed the highest fraction of plasmids smaller than 18 kbp (n=168, 61.54%). Large ARG-plasmids, however, were recovered with small precision values (median=0.47, IQR=0.61), indicating that plasmidSPAdes frequently merged sequences derived from distinct replicons. Additionally, only 63% of all plasmid-borne ARGs were correctly predicted by plasmidSPAdes. The remaining four tools (FishingForPlasmids, HyAsP, SCAPP and gplas) were able to correctly reconstruct a combined total of 18 plasmids that were missed by MOB-suite and plasmidSPAdes. Available bioinformatic tools can provide valuable insight into E. coli plasmids, but also have important limitations. This work will serve as a guideline for selecting the most appropriate plasmid reconstruction tool for studies focusing on E. coli plasmids in the absence of long-read sequencing data.