ArticleResearch square2025
Variation of and associations with the depth and evenness of sequencing coverage in archived plastid genomes.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Depth and evenness of sequencing coverage are considered potential indicators of genome assembly quality. In plastid genomics, where new data generation has outpaced the development of assembly quality indicators, these coverage metrics could offer insights into the quality of plastomes of different sizes, structures, or taxonomic origins. However, the variation of sequencing depth and evenness among archived plastid genomes, their variability between genome partitions, and any association with methodological factors have yet to be evaluated. This study explores the variation of sequencing depth and evenness across a sample of publicly accessible plastid genomes in relation to their genome structure, assembly quality, and methodological provenance using uni- and multivariate statistical analyses. We also evaluate whether sequencing evenness in plastid genomes is biased by phylogenetic signal and assembly software choice, and whether more uniformly distributed input sequence data improves plastome assembly quality. Our results indicate significant differences in sequencing depth across the four structural partitions and between the coding and non-coding regions of plastid genomes, a significant correlation between sequencing evenness and the number of ambiguous nucleotides, and a significant difference in sequencing evenness between sequencing platforms. However, we also find that different covariates representing additional, lesser explored factors often show a similar, if not greater, explanatory power for the coverage variation. No indications of phylogenetic or software choice bias on sequencing evenness and only weak indications of phylogenetic bias among the assembly quality metrics are detected, suggesting that our study results represent genuine patterns. We also find that normalizing the distribution of the input sequence data before plastome assembly may improve assembly accuracy. Taken together, these findings highlight that many public plastid genomes derive from sequence data with highly variable depth and evenness, and that this variation is influenced, at least partially, by genome structure as well as methodological factors.
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.