Evaluation of Genome Sequencing Quality in Selected Plant Species Using Expressed Sequence Tags

Abstract

BackgroundWith the completion of genome sequencing projects for more than 30 plant species, large volumes of genome sequences have been produced and stored in online databases. Advancements in sequencing technologies have reduced the cost and time of whole genome sequencing enabling more and more plants to be subjected to genome sequencing. Despite this, genome sequence qualities of multiple plants have not been evaluated.Methodology/Principal FindingIntegrity and accuracy were calculated to evaluate the genome sequence quality of 32 plants. The integrity of a genome sequence is presented by the ratio of chromosome size and genome size (or between scaffold size and genome size), which ranged from 55.31% to nearly 100%. The accuracy of genome sequence was presented by the ratio between matched EST and selected ESTs where 52.93% ∼ 98.28% and 89.02% ∼ 98.85% of the randomly selected clean ESTs could be mapped to chromosome and scaffold sequences, respectively. According to the integrity, accuracy and other analysis of each plant species, thirteen plant species were divided into four levels. Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa and Zea mays had the highest quality, followed by Brachypodium distachyon, Populus trichocarpa, Vitis vinifera and Glycine max, Sorghum bicolor, Solanum lycopersicum and Fragaria vesca, and Lotus japonicus, Medicago truncatula and Malus × domestica in that order. Assembling the scaffold sequences into chromosome sequences should be the primary task for the remaining nineteen species. Low GC content and repeat DNA influences genome sequence assembly.ConclusionThe quality of plant genome sequences was found to be lower than envisaged and thus the rapid development of genome sequencing projects as well as research on bioinformatics tools and the algorithms of genome sequence assembly should provide increased processing and correction of genome sequences that have already been published.

Ploidy-dependent changes in the epigenome of symbiotic cells correlate with specific patterns of gene expression

“…However, the number of detected mCs is an underestimation caused by the RRBS approach, the sequencing coverage, and the stringent parameters used for mC calling (SI Materials and Methods). The 71-80% mCs in the CG context was higher than reported in other plants, in which typically 40-55% mCs are in the CG context (13,22,23). The reason for this difference is unknown but may be related to the lower GC content of the M. truncatula genome (27%) compared with other plant species (32-46%) (24).…”

“…Nodules were chopped with a razor blade, and nuclei were obtained by a Beckman MoFlow Astrios (Beckman Coulter) cell sorter. Comparable nuclear and total cellular mRNA pools (21,22) made possible the gene expression analysis in purified nuclei that was performed with RT-qPCR on total RNA purified from nuclei with Tri-Reagent (Sigma). Methylation analysis was performed with RRBS and MeDIP on nuclear DNA purified with the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit (Qiagen).…”

Dissecting the U, M, S and C genomes of wild relatives of bread wheat (Aegilops spp.) into chromosomes and exploring their synteny with wheat

“…speltoides and Ae. tauschii, respectively) (Kilian et al, 2011;Shangguan et al, 2013). Slicing the genomes into single chromosomes provides a powerful approach to perform structural and functional genome analysis Rey et al, 2015).…”

Sugarcane genome sequencing by methylation filtration provides tools for genomic research in the genus Saccharum

“…Indeed, the efficiency of the assembled MF scaffolds to identify genes was actually high, providing an excellent representation of ESTs and RNA-seq reads of sugarcane datasets, proteins from different species and genes and exons from sugarcane BACs. Recently, the ratio of ESTs coverage on plant genomes was reported to be a good parameter to distinguish good and poor assemblies (Shangguan et al, 2013). By generating MF scaffolds that cover at least 3.69 the sugarcane gene space, it was possible to achieve the same amount or even more information than that covered in the sorghum MF dataset with only 19 coverage (Bedell et al, 2005).…”