ArticleBMC genomics2022
The effects of sequencing depth on the assembly of coding and noncoding transcripts in the human genome.
Article in BMC genomics, 2022. 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.
- Benchmarking genome assemblers for four bacterial models based on contiguity, correctness, and completeness.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Transposable element expression and sub-cellular dynamics during hPSC differentiation to endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm lineages.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Long-read RNA sequencing enables full-length chimeric transcript annotation of transposable elements in lung adenocarcinoma.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Transcriptome sequencing reveals the evolutionary histories and gene expression evolution in two related Pagurus species.PloS one · 2025Article
- Sex-limited experimental evolution drives transcriptomic divergence in a hermaphrodite.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Merging short and stranded long reads improves transcript assembly.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- The status of the human gene catalogue.ArXiv · 2023Article
- Flnc: Machine Learning Improves the Identification of Novel Long Noncoding RNAs from Stand-Alone RNA-Seq Data.Non-coding RNA · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigating the functions and activities of genes requires proper annotation of the transcribed units. However, transcript assembly efforts have produced a surprisingly large variation in the number of transcripts, and especially so for noncoding transcripts. This heterogeneity in assembled transcript sets might be partially explained by sequencing depth. Here, we used real and simulated short-read sequencing data as well as long-read data to systematically investigate the impact of sequencing depths on the accuracy of assembled transcripts. We assembled and analyzed transcripts from 671 human short-read data sets and four long-read data sets. At the first level, there is a positive correlation between the number of reads and the number of recovered transcripts. However, the effect of the sequencing depth varied based on cell or tissue type, the type of read and the nature and expression levels of the transcripts. The detection of coding transcripts saturated rapidly with both short and long-reads, however, there was no sign of early saturation for noncoding transcripts at any sequencing depth. Increasing long-read sequencing depth specifically benefited transcripts containing transposable elements. Finally, we show how single-cell RNA-seq can be guided by transcripts assembled from bulk long-read samples, and demonstrate that noncoding transcripts are expressed at similar levels to coding transcripts but are expressed in fewer cells. This study highlights the impact of sequencing depth on transcript assembly.
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.