ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2014
Development and validation of an rDNA operon based primer walking strategy applicable to de novo bacterial genome finishing.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Whole-genome sequencing of Fusarium spp. causing sugarcane root rot on both chewing cane and sugar-making cane.Stress biology · 2024Article
- Isolation, identification and characterization of Paenibacillus polymyxa CR1 with potentials for biopesticide, biofertilization, biomass degradation and biofuel production.BMC microbiology · 2016Article
- Complete Genome Sequence of Arthrobacter sp. Strain LS16, Isolated from Agricultural Soils with Potential for Applications in Bioremediation and Bioproducts.Genome announcements · 2016Article
- 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in sequencing technology have drastically increased the depth and feasibility of bacterial genome sequencing. However, little information is available that details the specific techniques and procedures employed during genome sequencing despite the large numbers of published genomes. Shotgun approaches employed by second-generation sequencing platforms has necessitated the development of robust bioinformatics tools for in silico assembly, and complete assembly is limited by the presence of repetitive DNA sequences and multi-copy operons. Typically, re-sequencing with multiple platforms and laborious, targeted Sanger sequencing are employed to finish a draft bacterial genome. Here we describe a novel strategy based on the identification and targeted sequencing of repetitive rDNA operons to expedite bacterial genome assembly and finishing. Our strategy was validated by finishing the genome of Paenibacillus polymyxa strain CR1, a bacterium with potential in sustainable agriculture and bio-based processes. An analysis of the 38 contigs contained in the P. polymyxa strain CR1 draft genome revealed 12 repetitive rDNA operons with varied intragenic and flanking regions of variable length, unanimously located at contig boundaries and within contig gaps. These highly similar but not identical rDNA operons were experimentally verified and sequenced simultaneously with multiple, specially designed primer sets. This approach also identified and corrected significant sequence rearrangement generated during the initial in silico assembly of sequencing reads. Our approach reduces the required effort associated with blind primer walking for contig assembly, increasing both the speed and feasibility of genome finishing. Our study further reinforces the notion that repetitive DNA elements are major limiting factors for genome finishing. Moreover, we provided a step-by-step workflow for genome finishing, which may guide future bacterial genome finishing projects.
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.