ArticleBMC genomics2010
Comparing de novo assemblers for 454 transcriptome data.
Article in BMC genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
146 citing papers in PubMed, 260 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-Omics Analysis Decodes Biosynthesis of Specialized Metabolites Constituting the Therapeutic Terrains ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Insights into the global freshwater virome.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Metatranscriptomic Analysis of Bacterial Communities on Laundered Textiles: A Pilot Case Study.Microorganisms · 2021Article
- Revised Draft Genome Sequences of Rhodomicrobium vannielii ATCC 17100 and Rhodomicrobium udaipurense JA643.Microbiology resource announcements · 2021Article
- An unusual type I ribosome-inactivating protein from Agrostemma githago L.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Transcriptome Analysis of Maternal Gene Transcripts in Unfertilized Eggs ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- De novo transcriptome assembly: A comprehensive cross-species comparison of short-read RNA-Seq assemblers.GigaScience · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-encoding genes are spreading on a wide range of Escherichia coli plasmids existing prior to the use of third-generation cephalosporins.Microbial genomics · 2018Article
- Comparative De Novo Transcriptome Assembly ofCalifornian journal of health promotion · 2018Article
- Transcriptional profiling of cork oak phellogenic cells isolated by laser microdissection.Planta · 2018Article
- Article
- Annotation of nerve cord transcriptome in earthwormGenomics data · 2017Article
- Draft Genome Sequence ofGenome announcements · 2017Article
- Perusal of parasitic nematode 'omics in the post-genomic era.Molecular and biochemical parasitology · 2017Review
- Transcriptomics technologies.PLoS computational biology · 2017Article
- A reference floral transcriptome of sexual and apomictic Paspalum notatum.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- Draft Genome Sequence ofGenome announcements · 2017Article
- De novo transcriptome assembly and characterization of nine tissues of Lonicera japonica to identify potential candidate genes involved in chlorogenic acid, luteolosides, and secoiridoid biosynthesis pathways.Journal of natural medicines · 2017Article
86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRoche 454 pyrosequencing has become a method of choice for generating transcriptome data from non-model organisms. Once the tens to hundreds of thousands of short (250-450 base) reads have been produced, it is important to correctly assemble these to estimate the sequence of all the transcripts. Most transcriptome assembly projects use only one program for assembling 454 pyrosequencing reads, but there is no evidence that the programs used to date are optimal. We have carried out a systematic comparison of five assemblers (CAP3, MIRA, Newbler, SeqMan and CLC) to establish best practices for transcriptome assemblies, using a new dataset from the parasitic nematode Litomosoides sigmodontis.
resultsAlthough no single assembler performed best on all our criteria, Newbler 2.5 gave longer contigs, better alignments to some reference sequences, and was fast and easy to use. SeqMan assemblies performed best on the criterion of recapitulating known transcripts, and had more novel sequence than the other assemblers, but generated an excess of small, redundant contigs. The remaining assemblers all performed almost as well, with the exception of Newbler 2.3 (the version currently used by most assembly projects), which generated assemblies that had significantly lower total length. As different assemblers use different underlying algorithms to generate contigs, we also explored merging of assemblies and found that the merged datasets not only aligned better to reference sequences than individual assemblies, but were also more consistent in the number and size of contigs.
conclusionsTranscriptome assemblies are smaller than genome assemblies and thus should be more computationally tractable, but are often harder because individual contigs can have highly variable read coverage. Comparing single assemblers, Newbler 2.5 performed best on our trial data set, but other assemblers were closely comparable. Combining differently optimal assemblies from different programs however gave a more credible final product, and this strategy is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.