Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27400974›Full record

SynthesisIntegrative and comparative biology2016

Here We Are, But Where Do We Go? A Systematic Review of Crustacean Transcriptomic Studies from 2014-2015.

Justin C Havird, Scott R Santos

Abstract readHistorical ArticleSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Integrative and comparative biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Justin C Havird*Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA; justin.havird@colostate.edu.
Scott R SantosDepartment of Biological Sciences and Molette Laboratory for Climate Change and Environmental Studies, Auburn University, 101 Rouse Life Sciences Bldg, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.

Funding

Supplement request for 1F32GM116361-01F32GM116361 · NIGMS · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HAVIRD, JUSTIN C · 2015 to 2017
$168k
NIGMS NIH HHS F32 GM116361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite their economic, ecological, and experimental importance, genomic resources remain scarce for crustaceans. In lieu of genomes, many researchers have taken advantage of technological advancements to instead sequence and assemble crustacean transcriptomes de novo However, there is little consensus on what standard operating procedures are, or should be, for the field. Here, we systematically reviewed 53 studies published during 2014-2015 that utilized transcriptomic resources from this taxonomic group in an effort to identify commonalities as well as potential weaknesses that have applicability beyond just crustaceans. In general, these studies utilized RNA-Seq data, both novel and publicly available, to characterize transcriptomes and/or identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between treatments. Although the software suite Trinity was popular in assembly pipelines and other programs were also commonly employed, many studies failed to report crucial details regarding bioinformatic methodologies, including read mappers and the utilized parameters in identifying and characterizing DEGs. Annotation percentages for assembled transcriptomic contigs were low, averaging 32% overall. While other metrics, such as numbers of contigs and DEGs reported, correlated with the number of sequence reads utilized per sample, these did reach apparent saturation with increasing sequencing depth. Most disturbingly, a number of studies (55%) reported DEGs based on non-replicated experimental designs and single biological replicates for each treatment. Given this, we suggest future RNA-Seq experiments targeting transcriptome characterization conduct deeper (i.e., 50-100 M reads) sequencing while those examining differential expression instead focus more on increased biological replicates at shallower (i.e., ∼10-20 M reads/sample) sequencing depths. Moreover, the community must avoid submitting for review, or accepting for publication, non-replicated differential expression studies. Finally, mining the ever growing publicly available transcriptomic data from crustaceans will allow future studies to focus on hypothesis-driven research instead of continuing to simply characterize transcriptomes. As an example of this, we utilized neurotoxin sequences from the recently described remipede venom gland transcriptome in conjunction with publicly available crustacean transcriptomic data to derive preliminary results and hypotheses regarding the evolution of venom in crustaceans.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological EvolutionComputational BiologyCrustaceaHistory, 21st CenturySoftwareTranscriptomeVenomsVenoms

Identifiers

PMID27400974
PMCPMC6281346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.