Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28873963›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2017

De novo genome assembly and annotation of Australia's largest freshwater fish, the Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii), from Illumina and Nanopore sequencing read.

Christopher M Austin, Mun Hua Tan, Katherine A Harrisson, Yin Peng Lee, Laurence J Croft, Paul Sunnucks, Alexandra Pavlova, Han Ming Gan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher M AustinCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.
Mun Hua TanCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.
Katherine A HarrissonSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Yin Peng LeeGenomics Facility, Tropical Medicine and Biology Platform, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway 47500, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Laurence J CroftSchool of Science, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway 47500, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Paul SunnucksSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Alexandra PavlovaSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Han Ming GanCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.
Deakin University · AUMonash University · AUMonash University Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most iconic Australian fish is the Murray cod, Maccullochella peelii (Mitchell 1838), a freshwater species that can grow to ∼1.8 metres in length and live to age ≥48 years. The Murray cod is of a conservation concern as a result of strong population contractions, but it is also popular for recreational fishing and is of growing aquaculture interest. In this study, we report the whole genome sequence of the Murray cod to support ongoing population genetics, conservation, and management research, as well as to better understand the evolutionary ecology and history of the species. A draft Murray cod genome of 633 Mbp (N50 = 109 974bp; BUSCO and CEGMA completeness of 94.2% and 91.9%, respectively) with an estimated 148 Mbp of putative repetitive sequences was assembled from the combined sequencing data of 2 fish individuals with an identical maternal lineage; 47.2 Gb of Illumina HiSeq data and 804 Mb of Nanopore data were generated from the first individual while 23.2 Gb of Illumina MiSeq data were generated from the second individual. The inclusion of Nanopore reads for scaffolding followed by subsequent gap-closing using Illumina data led to a 29% reduction in the number of scaffolds and a 55% and 54% increase in the scaffold and contig N50, respectively. We also report the first transcriptome of Murray cod that was subsequently used to annotate the Murray cod genome, leading to the identification of 26 539 protein-coding genes. We present the whole genome of the Murray cod and anticipate this will be a catalyst for a range of genetic, genomic, and phylogenetic studies of the Murray cod and more generally other fish species of the Percichthydae family.

Indexed as

GenomeGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingAnimalsAustraliaGene Expression ProfilingGene LibraryMolecular Sequence AnnotationPerciformesRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidTranscriptomegenomehybrid assemblylong readsMurray codtranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID28873963
PMCPMC5597895
OpenAlexW2738731829

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.