2015
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-2007-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimizing and benchmarking de novo transcriptome sequencing: from library preparation to assembly evaluation

Abstract: BackgroundRNA-seq enables gene expression profiling in selected spatiotemporal windows and yields massive sequence information with relatively low cost and time investment, even for non-model species. However, there remains a large room for optimizing its workflow, in order to take full advantage of continuously developing sequencing capacity.MethodTranscriptome sequencing for three embryonic stages of Madagascar ground gecko (Paroedura picta) was performed with the Illumina platform. The output reads were ass… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
94
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
3
94
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…When comparing this latter score with other de novo squamate transcriptomes analyzed by means of gVolante, it is only exceeded by one the Madagascar ground gecko (Paroedura picta), which contained 100% of CVG dataset. 22 Notably, our assembly significantly outperforms the previously published Chamaeleo chamaeleon transcriptome, 13 which achieved a modest score of 42.92%. In addition to its completeness, we internally validated our final assembly by mapping reads back to our transcriptome using bwa [v0.7.17] 23 and calculated mapping statistics using bamtools [v2.5.1].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When comparing this latter score with other de novo squamate transcriptomes analyzed by means of gVolante, it is only exceeded by one the Madagascar ground gecko (Paroedura picta), which contained 100% of CVG dataset. 22 Notably, our assembly significantly outperforms the previously published Chamaeleo chamaeleon transcriptome, 13 which achieved a modest score of 42.92%. In addition to its completeness, we internally validated our final assembly by mapping reads back to our transcriptome using bwa [v0.7.17] 23 and calculated mapping statistics using bamtools [v2.5.1].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Furthermore, when compared against the CVG database (233 genes), our assembly possesses 99.14% complete copies of this gene set (ie, missing 2 genes). When comparing this latter score with other de novo squamate transcriptomes analyzed by means of gVolante, it is only exceeded by one the Madagascar ground gecko ( Paroedura picta ), which contained 100% of CVG dataset . Notably, our assembly significantly outperforms the previously published Chamaeleo chamaeleon transcriptome, which achieved a modest score of 42.92%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Although the BUSCO score of Callorhinchus is higher than in whale shark (which is expected as Callorhinchus was used in selecting the conserved ortholog set for BUSCO), when considering gene families across vertebrates rather than simply the set in BUSCO (See Ancestral Vertebrate Genome Evolution below and Supplementary Note 2), we infer more gene families are missing from Callorhinchus than the whale shark, suggesting that either the whale shark has a greater conservation of the gene families from the ancestral cartilaginous fish than Callorhinchus , or that the whale shark has fewer missing gene families in its assembly than Callorhinchus . When evaluating gene completeness using a rigid 1-to-1 ortholog core vertebrate gene set 26 (implemented in gVolante 27 ), we found 85% core vertebrate genes were complete and found 97.4% core vertebrate genes included partial genes, which compares favorably to other sharks 11 . Thus, the gene content of the whale shark is quite complete for a cartilaginous fish genome and will be informative for questions regarding vertebrate gene evolution.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Currently, normal stages of development are characterized for six gecko species, with varying morphologies and ecologies. 6,53,61,62,72 Access to additional resourcesprotocols for husbandry and embryo collection, 18,23 genomic and transcriptomic resources, 19,21,24,103,104 and now manipulatable soft-tissue μCT data across developmentsets the foundation for geckos, and specifically L. lugubris, to be powerful evo-devo models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%