↓ Skip to main content

Comparative performance of transcriptome assembly methods for non-model organisms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative performance of transcriptome assembly methods for non-model organisms
Published in
BMC Genomics, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2923-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xin Huang, Xiao-Guang Chen, Peter A. Armbruster

Abstract

The technological revolution in next-generation sequencing has brought unprecedented opportunities to study any organism of interest at the genomic or transcriptomic level. Transcriptome assembly is a crucial first step for studying the molecular basis of phenotypes of interest using RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq). However, the optimal strategy for assembling vast amounts of short RNA-Seq reads remains unresolved, especially for organisms without a sequenced genome. This study compared four transcriptome assembly methods, including a widely used de novo assembler (Trinity), two transcriptome re-assembly strategies utilizing proteomic and genomic resources from closely related species (reference-based re-assembly and TransPS) and a genome-guided assembler (Cufflinks). These four assembly strategies were compared using a comprehensive transcriptomic database of Aedes albopictus, for which a genome sequence has recently been completed. The quality of the various assemblies was assessed by the number of contigs generated, contig length distribution, percent paired-end read mapping, and gene model representation via BLASTX. Our results reveal that de novo assembly generates a similar number of gene models relative to genome-guided assembly with a fragmented reference, but produces the highest level of redundancy and requires the most computational power. Using a closely related reference genome to guide transcriptome assembly can generate biased contig sequences. Increasing the number of reads used in the transcriptome assembly tends to increase the redundancy within the assembly and decrease both median contig length and percent identity between contigs and reference protein sequences. This study provides general guidance for transcriptome assembly of RNA-Seq data from organisms with or without a sequenced genome. The optimal transcriptome assembly strategy will depend upon the subsequent downstream analyses. However, our results emphasize the efficacy of de novo assembly, which can be as effective as genome-guided assembly when the reference genome assembly is fragmented. If a genome assembly and sufficient computational resources are available, it can be beneficial to combine de novo and genome-guided assemblies. Caution should be taken when using a closely related reference genome to guide transcriptome assembly. The quantity of read pairs used in the transcriptome assembly does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the assembly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Japan 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 216 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 25%
Researcher 49 21%
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 34 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 96 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 66 29%
Computer Science 8 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Environmental Science 5 2%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 37 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,282,082
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#692
of 10,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,537
of 365,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#16
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,666 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.