Cited by 94Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesProtist diversity and phylogenySingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Re-assembly, quality evaluation, and annotation of 678 microbial eukaryotic reference transcriptomes

Open access
Johnson, Lisa K, Alexander, Harriet, Brown, C Titus·2019·GigaScience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: De novo transcriptome assemblies are required prior to analyzing RNA sequencing data from a species without an existing reference genome or transcriptome. Despite the prevalence of transcriptomic studies, the effects of using different workflows, or “pipelines," on the resulting assemblies are poorly understood. Here, a pipeline was programmatically automated and used to assemble and annotate raw transcriptomic short-read data collected as part of the Marine Microbial Eukaryotic Transcriptome Sequencing Project. The resulting transcriptome assemblies were evaluated and compared against assemblies that were previously generated with a different pipeline developed by the National Center for Genome Research. Results: New transcriptome assemblies contained the majority of previous contigs as well as new content. On average, 7.8% of the annotated contigs in the new assemblies were novel gene names not found in the previous assemblies. Taxonomic trends were observed in the assembly metrics. Assemblies from the Dinoflagellata showed a higher number of contigs and unique k-mers than transcriptomes from other phyla, while assemblies from Ciliophora had a lower percentage of open reading frames compared to other phyla. Conclusions: Given current bioinformatics approaches, there is no single “best” reference transcriptome for a particular set of raw data. As the optimum transcriptome is a moving target, improving (or not) with new tools and approaches, automated and programmable pipelines are invaluable for managing the computationally intensive tasks required for re-processing large sets of samples with revised pipelines and ensuring a common evaluation workflow is applied to all samples. Thus, re-assembling existing data with new tools using automated and programmable pipelines may yield more accurate identification of taxon-specific trends across samples in addition to novel and useful products for the community.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/gigascience/giy158

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [65]Johnson LK, Alexander H, Brown CT Supporting data for ‘re-assembly, quality evaluation, and annotation of 678 microbial eukaryotic reference transcriptomes’; GigaScience Database 2018 10.5524/100522. PMC6481552 30544207 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, L. K., Alexander, H., & Brown, C. T.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (US)
Corresponding author
Brown, C Titus
Venue
GigaScience
Published
2018-12-13
Volume
8
Issue
4
ISSN
2047-217X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952126099
Cited by
94
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • GigaScience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access Server of the Woods Hole Scientific Community (Woods Hole Scientific Community) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF4551)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
de novo transcriptome assembly, reference transcriptome, automated bioinformatics pipeline, transcriptome annotation, gene discovery, dinoflagellates, ciliates, open reading frames
MeSH terms
Genome, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Genomics, Databases, Genetic, Eukaryota, Workflow, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Transcriptome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review