ArticleBMC research notes2012
A shot in the genome: how accurately do shotgun 454 sequences represent a genome?
Article in BMC research notes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of plant microbe interactions in the era of next generation sequencing technologies.Frontiers in plant science · 2014Review
- Genomic evolution of the pathogenic Wolbachia strain, wMelPop.Genome biology and evolution · 2013Article
- Breakdown of phylogenetic signal: a survey of microsatellite densities in 454 shotgun sequences from 154 non model eukaryote species.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNext generation sequencing (NGS) provides a valuable method to quickly obtain sequence information from non-model organisms at a genomic scale. In principle, if sequencing is not targeted for a genomic region or sequence type (e.g. coding region, microsatellites) NGS reads can be used as a genome snapshot and provide information on the different types of sequences in the genome. However, no study has ascertained if a typical 454 dataset of low coverage (1/4-1/8 of a PicoTiter plate leading to generally less than 0.1x of coverage) represents all parts of genomes equally.
findingsPartial genome shotgun sequencing of total DNA (without enrichment) on a 454 NGS platform was used to obtain reads of Apis mellifera (454 reads hereafter). These 454 reads were compared to the assembled chromosomes of this species in three different aspects: (i) dimer and trimer compositions, (ii) the distribution of mapped 454 sequences along the chromosomes and (iii) the numbers of different classes of microsatellites. Highly significant chi-square tests for all three types of analyses indicated that the 454 data is not a perfect random sample of the genome. Only the number of 454 reads mapped to each of the 16 chromosomes and the number of microsatellites pooled by motif (repeat unit) length was not significantly different from the expected values. However, a very strong correlation (correlation coefficients greater than 0.97) was observed between most of the 454 variables (the number of different dimers and trimers, the number of 454 reads mapped to each chromosome fragments of one Mb, the number of 454 reads mapped to each chromosome, the number of microsatellites of each class) and their corresponding genomic variables.
conclusionsThe results of chi square tests suggest that 454 shotgun reads cannot be regarded as a perfect representation of the genome especially if the comparison is done on a finer scale (e.g. chromosome fragments instead of whole chromosomes). However, the high correlation between 454 and genome variables tested indicate that a high proportion of the variability of 454 variables is explained by their genomic counterparts. Therefore, we conclude that using 454 data to obtain information on the genome is biologically meaningful.
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.