4.7 Editorial Material

How complete are complete genome assemblies?-An avian perspective

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 1188-1195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12933

关键词

birds; genomics; hybrid assembly; long reads; multiplatform sequencing; repeats

资金

  1. SciLifeLab Swedish Biodiversity Program [2015-R14]
  2. Swedish Science Foundation [2016-05139]
  3. Swedish Research Council [2016-05139] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council
  4. Vinnova [2016-05139] Funding Source: Vinnova

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genomics revolution has led to the sequencing of a large variety of nonmodel organisms often referred to as whole or complete genome assemblies. But how complete are these, really? Here, we use birds as an example for nonmodel vertebrates and find that, although suitable in principle for genomic studies, the current standard of short-read assemblies misses a significant proportion of the expected genome size (7% to 42%; mean 20 +/- 9%). In particular, regions with strongly deviating nucleotide composition (e.g., guanine-cytosine-[GC]-rich) and regions highly enriched in repetitive DNA (e.g., transposable elements and satellite DNA) are usually underrepresented in assemblies. However, long-read sequencing technologies successfully characterize many of these underrepresented GC-rich or repeat-rich regions in several bird genomes. For instance, only similar to 2% of the expected total base pairs are missing in the last chicken reference (galGal5). These assemblies still contain thousands of gaps (i.e., fragmented sequences) because some chromosomal structures (e.g., centromeres) likely contain arrays of repetitive DNA that are too long to bridge with currently available technologies. We discuss how to minimize the number of assembly gaps by combining the latest available technologies with complementary strengths. At last, we emphasize the importance of knowing the location, size and potential content of assembly gaps when making population genetic inferences about adjacent genomic regions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据