ArticleGenes & genomics2018
Comparison of methods for library construction and short read annotation of shellfish viral metagenomes.
Article in Genes & genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular assessment of oyster microbiomes and viromes reveals their potential as pathogen and ecological sentinels.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Identification and classification of the genomes of novel microviruses in poultry slaughterhouse.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Combined Analysis of the Whole Transcriptome of Piglets Infected with SADS-CoV Virulent and Avirulent Strains.Microorganisms · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The emergence and widespread use of high-throughput sequencing technologies have promoted metagenomic studies on environmental or animal samples. Library construction for metagenome sequencing and annotation of the produced sequence reads are important steps in such studies and influence the quality of metagenomic data. In this study, we collected some marine mollusk samples, such as Crassostrea hongkongensis, Chlamys farreri, and Ruditapes philippinarum, from coastal areas in South China. These samples were divided into two batches to compare two library construction methods for shellfish viral metagenome. Our analysis showed that reverse-transcribing RNA into cDNA and then amplifying it simultaneously with DNA by whole genome amplification (WGA) yielded a larger amount of DNA compared to using only WGA or WTA (whole transcriptome amplification). Moreover, higher quality libraries were obtained by agarose gel extraction rather than with AMPure bead size selection. However, the latter can also provide good results if combined with the adjustment of the filter parameters. This, together with its simplicity, makes it a viable alternative. Finally, we compared three annotation tools (BLAST, DIAMOND, and Taxonomer) and two reference databases (NCBI's NR and Uniprot's Uniref). Considering the limitations of computing resources and data transfer speed, we propose the use of DIAMOND with Uniref for annotating metagenomic short reads as its running speed can guarantee a good annotation rate. This study may serve as a useful reference for selecting methods for Shellfish viral metagenome library construction and read annotation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29892802What 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.