ArticleGenome biology and evolution2020
Genome Size Versus Genome Assemblies: Are the Genomes Truly Expanded in Polyploid Fungal Symbionts?
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can whole genome sequencing resolve taxonomic ambiguities in fungi? The case study ofFrontiers in fungal biology · 2025Article
- Genomic Signatures of Domestication in a Fungus Obligately Farmed by Leafcutter Ants.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Article
- Intraspecific diploidization of a halophyte root fungus drives heterosis.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Comparative genomics of the extremophileFrontiers in fungal biology · 2024Article
- Genome analysis and genomic comparison of a fungal cultivar of the nonsocial weevilFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Whole genome sequencing ofFrontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Genome reduction and relaxed selection is associated with the transition to symbiosis in the basidiomycete genusiScience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Each day, as the amount of genomic data and bioinformatics resources grows, researchers are increasingly challenged with selecting the most appropriate approach to analyze their data. In addition, the opportunity to undertake comparative genomic analyses is growing rapidly. This is especially true for fungi due to their small genome sizes (i.e., mean 1C = 44.2 Mb). Given these opportunities and aiming to gain novel insights into the evolution of mutualisms, we focus on comparing the quality of whole genome assemblies for fungus-growing ants cultivars (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Attini) and a free-living relative. Our analyses reveal that currently available methodologies and pipelines for analyzing whole-genome sequence data need refining. By using different genome assemblers, we show that the genome assembly size depends on what software is used. This, in turn, impacts gene number predictions, with higher gene numbers correlating positively with genome assembly size. Furthermore, the majority of fungal genome size data currently available are based on estimates derived from whole-genome assemblies generated from short-read genome data, rather than from the more accurate technique of flow cytometry. Here, we estimated the haploid genome sizes of three ant fungal symbionts by flow cytometry using the fungus Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq.) P. Kumm. (1871) as a calibration standard. We found that published genome sizes based on genome assemblies are 2.5- to 3-fold larger than our estimates based on flow cytometry. We, therefore, recommend that flow cytometry is used to precalibrate genome assembly pipelines, to avoid incorrect estimates of genome sizes and ensure robust assemblies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.