SPAdes should indicate the coverage of the scaffolds generated in the scaffold name. You can also determine this by mapping the reads back and assessing average coverage for the scaffolds.
If you have very high coverage (if this is the only data in a HiSeq lane and the size is ~3Kb, it's likely extremely high unless you have other low-coverage stuff in there such as genomic seq), it may be worth either simply directly downsampling the data or filtering sequences w/ low abundance kmers followed by normalization (khmer can do this), then retrying the assembly, sometimes it helps. We did this for plant chloroplast genomes w/ low coverage WGS data, worked a charm.
Have you compared the 10 contigs to each other to see how similar they are and if they could be collapsed into a smaller set? They may be related to each other. Was the data generated from isolated "putative" plasmid DNA or did the sample have other DNA? Do eukaryotic plasmids have an identifiable origin of replication that you could look for (just thinking out aloud)?
Hi Genomax2,
I had Gel extracted my putative plasmid from the Genomic DNA, so there is no question of contamination in it. The 10 contigs which I got are in the size range from 6.6kb to 2.5kb and coverage ranging from 66 to 2. I did a Nucleotide BLAST and I am getting Hits of E. coli plasmid for most of my contigs. As I dont know what should be the ideal coverage of a plasmid, I am baffled in selecting any one contig. Does a Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic plasmid have a similar origin of replication?
Have you blasted the contigs against each other? That would be one way to judge their similarity. You could also use Mauve and try to align them to each other.
In any case you probably have coverage that is much deeper than necessary to do this assembly. Try the options suggested by @Chris below.