Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26314885›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

A clone-free, single molecule map of the domestic cow (Bos taurus) genome.

Shiguo Zhou, Steve Goldstein, Michael Place, Michael Bechner, Diego Patino, Konstantinos Potamousis, Prabu Ravindran, Louise Pape, Gonzalo Rincon, Juan Hernandez-Ortiz and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advances in optical mapping for genomic research.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shiguo ZhouLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. szhou@wisc.edu.
Steve GoldsteinLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. sgoldstein@wisc.edu.
Michael PlaceLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. mplace@wisc.edu.
Michael BechnerLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. mcbechner@wisc.edu.
Diego PatinoDepartamento de Materiales, Facultad de Minas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin, Calle 75 # 79A-51, Bloque M17, Medellin, Colombia, SA. dipaco@gmail.com.
Konstantinos PotamousisLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. kpotamousis@wisc.edu.
Prabu RavindranLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. praburavindran@gmail.com.
Louise PapeLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. lpape@wisc.edu.
Gonzalo RinconDepartment of Animal Science, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. gonzalo.rincon@zoetis.com.
Juan Hernandez-OrtizDepartamento de Materiales, Facultad de Minas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin, Calle 75 # 79A-51, Bloque M17, Medellin, Colombia, SA. jphernandezo@unal.edu.co.
Juan F MedranoDepartment of Animal Science, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. jfmedrano@ucdavis.edu.
David C SchwartzLaboratory for Molecular and Computational Genomics, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Genetics, and the UW Biotechnology Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 425 Henry Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. dcschwartz@wisc.edu.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USUniversidad Nacional de Colombia · COUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

NEW PHYSICAL METHODOLOGIES FOR GENOMIC ANALYSISR01HG000225 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI SCHWARTZ, DAVID C. · 1991 to 2014
$5.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG000225NHGRI NIH HHS R01HG000225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe cattle (Bos taurus) genome was originally selected for sequencing due to its economic importance and unique biology as a model organism for understanding other ruminants, or mammals. Currently, there are two cattle genome sequence assemblies (UMD3.1 and Btau4.6) from groups using dissimilar assembly algorithms, which were complemented by genetic and physical map resources. However, past comparisons between these assemblies revealed substantial differences. Consequently, such discordances have engendered ambiguities when using reference sequence data, impacting genomic studies in cattle and motivating construction of a new optical map resource--BtOM1.0--to guide comparisons and improvements to the current sequence builds. Accordingly, our comprehensive comparisons of BtOM1.0 against the UMD3.1 and Btau4.6 sequence builds tabulate large-to-immediate scale discordances requiring mediation.

resultsThe optical map, BtOM1.0, spanning the B. taurus genome (Hereford breed, L1 Dominette 01449) was assembled from an optical map dataset consisting of 2,973,315 (439 X; raw dataset size before assembly) single molecule optical maps (Rmaps; 1 Rmap = 1 restriction mapped DNA molecule) generated by the Optical Mapping System. The BamHI map spans 2,575.30 Mb and comprises 78 optical contigs assembled by a combination of iterative (using the reference sequence: UMD3.1) and de novo assembly techniques. BtOM1.0 is a high-resolution physical map featuring an average restriction fragment size of 8.91 Kb. Comparisons of BtOM1.0 vs. UMD3.1, or Btau4.6, revealed that Btau4.6 presented far more discordances (7,463) vs. UMD3.1 (4,754). Overall, we found that Btau4.6 presented almost double the number of discordances than UMD3.1 across most of the 6 categories of sequence vs. map discrepancies, which are: COMPLEX (misassembly), DELs (extraneous sequences), INSs (missing sequences), ITs (Inverted/Translocated sequences), ECs (extra restriction cuts) and MCs (missing restriction cuts).

conclusionAlignments of UMD3.1 and Btau4.6 to BtOM1.0 reveal discordances commensurate with previous reports, and affirm the NCBI's current designation of UMD3.1 sequence assembly as the "reference assembly" and the Btau4.6 as the "alternate assembly." The cattle genome optical map, BtOM1.0, when used as a comprehensive and largely independent guide, will greatly assist improvements to existing sequence builds, and later serve as an accurate physical scaffold for studies concerning the comparative genomics of cattle breeds.

Indexed as

Chromosome MappingGenomeGenomicsAnimalsCattleComputational BiologyDatasets as TopicGene Order

Identifiers

PMID26314885
PMCPMC4551733
OpenAlexW2147960374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.