4.7 Article

Comparison of different sequencing strategies for assembling chromosome-level genomes of extremophiles with variable GC content

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102219

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31922070, 32060004]
  2. National Science and Technology Major Project of China [2017ZX10303406]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20180038]
  4. Tianshan Pine Plan [2017XS26]
  5. Basic Scientific R&D Program for Public Welfare Institutes in Xinjiang [KY2019023, KY 2019019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared hybrid assembly strategies for genome assembly of six bacterial isolates using different sequencing platforms, and found that stLFR sequencing data yielded more contiguity and gene function integrity compared to NGS. The research provides a cost-effective chromosome-level genome assembly strategy for large-scale sequencing of extremophile genomes with different GC contents.
In this study, six bacterial isolates with variable GC, including Escherichia coli as mesophilic reference strain, were selected to compare hybrid assembly strategies based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) of short reads, single-tube long-fragment reads (stLFR) sequencing, and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing platforms. We obtained the complete genomes using the hybrid assembler Unicycler based on the NGS and ONT reads; others were de novo assembled using NGS, stLFR, and ONT reads by using different strategies. The contiguity, accuracy, completeness, sequencing costs, and DNA material requirements of the investigated strategies were compared systematically. Although all sequencing data could be assembled into accurate whole-genome sequences, the stLFR sequencing data yield a scaffold with more contiguity with more completeness of gene function than NGS sequencing assemblies. Our research provides a low-cost chromosome-level genome assembly strategy for large-scale sequencing of extremophile genomes with different GC contents.

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