ArticleMicrobiome2014
Comparison of assembly algorithms for improving rate of metatranscriptomic functional annotation.
Article in Microbiome, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpreting fungal ecological contributions through taxonomic and functional profiling of metatranscriptomics.IMA fungus · 2026Review
- Discovery and characterization of BRBV-sheep virus in nasal swabs from domestic sheep in China.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Microbial gene expression analysis of healthy and cancerous esophagus uncovers bacterial biomarkers of clinical outcomes.ISME communications · 2023Article
- Linking extreme seasonality and gene expression in Arctic marine protists.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- MetaPro: a scalable and reproducible data processing and analysis pipeline for metatranscriptomic investigation of microbial communities.Microbiome · 2023Article
- A deep learning approach reveals unexplored landscape of viral expression in cancer.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Interrogating the role of the milk microbiome in mastitis in the multi-omics era.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Article
- Challenges, Strategies, and Perspectives for Reference-Independent Longitudinal Multi-Omic Microbiome Studies.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Tomato RNA-seq Data Mining Reveals the Taxonomic and Functional Diversity of Root-Associated Microbiota.Microorganisms · 2019Article
- Active Fungal Communities in AsymptomaticMicroorganisms · 2019Article
- To assemble or not to resemble-A validated Comparative Metatranscriptomics Workflow (CoMW).GigaScience · 2019Article
- Advances and Challenges in Metatranscriptomic Analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
- SAMSA2: a standalone metatranscriptome analysis pipeline.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Metatranscriptomics analysis of cyanobacterial aggregates during cyanobacterial bloom period in Lake Taihu, China.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
- Taxonomic and Functional Compositions Impacted by the Quality of Metatranscriptomic Assemblies.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Studying microbial functionality within the gut ecosystem by systems biology.Genes & nutrition · 2018Review
- Article
- Deep analysis of wild Vitis flower transcriptome reveals unexplored genome regions associated with sex specification.Plant molecular biology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicrobiome-wide gene expression profiling through high-throughput RNA sequencing ('metatranscriptomics') offers a powerful means to functionally interrogate complex microbial communities. Key to successful exploitation of these datasets is the ability to confidently match relatively short sequence reads to known bacterial transcripts. In the absence of reference genomes, such annotation efforts may be enhanced by assembling reads into longer contiguous sequences ('contigs'), prior to database search strategies. Since reads from homologous transcripts may derive from several species, represented at different abundance levels, it is not clear how well current assembly pipelines perform for metatranscriptomic datasets. Here we evaluate the performance of four currently employed assemblers including de novo transcriptome assemblers - Trinity and Oases; the metagenomic assembler - Metavelvet; and the recently developed metatranscriptomic assembler IDBA-MT.
resultsWe evaluated the performance of the assemblers on a previously published dataset of single-end RNA sequence reads derived from the large intestine of an inbred non-obese diabetic mouse model of type 1 diabetes. We found that Trinity performed best as judged by contigs assembled, reads assigned to contigs, and number of reads that could be annotated to a known bacterial transcript. Only 15.5% of RNA sequence reads could be annotated to a known transcript in contrast to 50.3% with Trinity assembly. Paired-end reads generated from the same mouse samples resulted in modest performance gains. A database search estimated that the assemblies are unlikely to erroneously merge multiple unrelated genes sharing a region of similarity (<2% of contigs). A simulated dataset based on ten species confirmed these findings. A more complex simulated dataset based on 72 species found that greater assembly errors were introduced than is expected by sequencing quality. Through the detailed evaluation of assembly performance, the insights provided by this study will help drive the design of future metatranscriptomic analyses.
conclusionAssembly of metatranscriptome datasets greatly improved read annotation. Of the four assemblers evaluated, Trinity provided the best performance. For more complex datasets, reads generated from transcripts sharing considerable sequence similarity can be a source of significant assembly error, suggesting a need to collate reads on the basis of common taxonomic origin prior to assembly.
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.