Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32396200›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2020

Sequencing smart: De novo sequencing and assembly approaches for a non-model mammal.

Graham J Etherington, Darren Heavens, David Baker, Ashleigh Lister, Rose McNelly, Gonzalo Garcia, Bernardo Clavijo, Iain Macaulay, Wilfried Haerty, Federica Di Palma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Genomic Tackling of Human Satellite DNA: Breaking Barriers through Time.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Graham J EtheringtonThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Darren HeavensThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
David BakerThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Ashleigh ListerThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Rose McNellyThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Gonzalo GarciaThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Bernardo ClavijoThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Iain MacaulayThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Wilfried HaertyThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.
Federica Di PalmaThe Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UZ, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L024055/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/T/000PR9817
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhilst much sequencing effort has focused on key mammalian model organisms such as mouse and human, little is known about the relationship between genome sequencing techniques for non-model mammals and genome assembly quality. This is especially relevant to non-model mammals, where the samples to be sequenced are often degraded and of low quality. A key aspect when planning a genome project is the choice of sequencing data to generate. This decision is driven by several factors, including the biological questions being asked, the quality of DNA available, and the availability of funds. Cutting-edge sequencing technologies now make it possible to achieve highly contiguous, chromosome-level genome assemblies, but rely on high-quality high molecular weight DNA. However, funding is often insufficient for many independent research groups to use these techniques. Here we use a range of different genomic technologies generated from a roadkill European polecat (Mustela putorius) to assess various assembly techniques on this low-quality sample. We evaluated different approaches for de novo assemblies and discuss their value in relation to biological analyses.

resultsGenerally, assemblies containing more data types achieved better scores in our ranking system. However, when accounting for misassemblies, this was not always the case for Bionano and low-coverage 10x Genomics (for scaffolding only). We also find that the extra cost associated with combining multiple data types is not necessarily associated with better genome assemblies.

conclusionsThe high degree of variability between each de novo assembly method (assessed from the 7 key metrics) highlights the importance of carefully devising the sequencing strategy to be able to carry out the desired analysis. Adding more data to genome assemblies does not always result in better assemblies, so it is important to understand the nuances of genomic data integration explained here, in order to obtain cost-effective value for money when sequencing genomes.

Indexed as

GenomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSoftwareAnimalsChromosome MappingComputational BiologyGenomicsassemblyBionanochromiumIlluminanon-model organismpolecatsequencingvertebrate

Identifiers

PMID32396200
PMCPMC7216774

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.