Literature DB >> 27153597

gEVAL - a web-based browser for evaluating genome assemblies.

William Chow1, Kim Brugger2, Mario Caccamo3, Ian Sealy1, James Torrance1, Kerstin Howe1.   

Abstract

MOTIVATION: For most research approaches, genome analyses are dependent on the existence of a high quality genome reference assembly. However, the local accuracy of an assembly remains difficult to assess and improve. The gEVAL browser allows the user to interrogate an assembly in any region of the genome by comparing it to different datasets and evaluating the concordance. These analyses include: a wide variety of sequence alignments, comparative analyses of multiple genome assemblies, and consistency with optical and other physical maps. gEVAL highlights allelic variations, regions of low complexity, abnormal coverage, and potential sequence and assembly errors, and offers strategies for improvement. Although gEVAL focuses primarily on sequence integrity, it can also display arbitrary annotation including from Ensembl or TrackHub sources. We provide gEVAL web sites for many human, mouse, zebrafish and chicken assemblies to support the Genome Reference Consortium, and gEVAL is also downloadable to enable its use for any organism and assembly.
AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Web Browser: http://geval.sanger.ac.uk, Plugin: http://wchow.github.io/wtsi-geval-plugin CONTACT: kj2@sanger.ac.uk SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27153597      PMCID: PMC4978925          DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


1 Introduction

Reference genomes are the foundation for genomic biology. As more and more de novo sequencing projects are being conducted, and more draft genomes released, the continued challenge is to create sufficiently complete and correct assemblies that can be confidently used as references by the research community. Although it has been over a decade since it was announced that the Human genome was completed, this statement referred to the then achievable quality of sequence resolution. There remained errors and lack of sequence coverage for important regions, for example many areas encoding multi-gene families (IHGSC, 2004, Horton ). Since then, genome assemblies of varying quality have been produced for many more species and individuals, often resulting in annotation errors with negative influence on their research use (Denton ). Groups such as the Genome Reference Consortium (GRC, genomereference.org) lead efforts to curate and resolve genome assembly issues, and maintain the best quality genome references possible for key research species (Church ). Depending on the project, groups that tackle creating a genome reference may have at their disposal multiple alternative assemblies together with resources such as clone libraries, collections of short reads, cDNA sequences, RNAseq data, physical maps, optical maps or genetic markers. These datasets help in repairing and reorganizing genomic regions or to create a strategy to infuse new sequence into a draft assembly. In parallel, research biologists who observe discrepancies between their data and the genome reference would benefit from being able to assess evidence supporting the reference in the region. Current public genome browsers include many of these types of datasets in their analysis repertoire, but usually focus on gene annotation (Cunningham , Rosenbloom ). They also represent major assembly builds released every few years and neither reflect uncertainties in the sequence itself, nor more recent improvements. Here we introduce the gEVAL Browser project, a collection of software and frequently updated databases for key species that takes a tiling path as the backbone, conducts analyses using new sources of data and regularly releases the results in a web interface for users to evaluate sequence integrity and create strategies for sequence management.

2 Overview

The web based gEVAL browser and the underlying back end databases use the Ensembl project as a framework to build on (Birney ). Supporting the GRC, it features the current, previous and in-progress official reference genomes of human, mouse chicken and zebrafish while also hosting assemblies of these species not found in other public genome browsers including those curated by the Genome in a Bottle Consortium (Zook ) (Supplementary Table S1), and 16 lab and wild derived mouse strains from the international Mouse Genomes Project (Adams ). Other species present but less frequently updated include pig (Sus scrofa), rat (Rattus norvegicus) and three helminth species (Echinococcus multilocularis, Strongyloides ratti, Schistosoma mansoni) (Supplementary Table S1). There are chromosomal, regional overview, detailed region and comparative browser views, in addition to lists of anomalies. Individual analysis tracks displaying a wide variety of glyphs can be selected interactively. Common tracks include clone library end sequences (Fig. 1A), cDNA alignments (Fig. 1C), genetic markers and self-alignments within the genome. Additional tracks available for some assemblies include issues in regions under review by the GRC, exact clone or sequence component placements and quality of overlaps between neighbouring assembly components (Fig. 1B). The glyphs are coloured to indicate discrepancies and offer pop-up menus that reveal further information and navigational options. All tracks incorporate navigational links to access adjacent s regions, allowing the user to ‘walk’ along the genome from one feature/issue to the next. Custom external user-sourced tracks can also be added by attaching datasets stored in trackhubs or genome browser supported file formats (GFF, BED).
Fig. 1.

Region on GRCh38 Chromosome 11 with variation and missing sequence. (A) Purple clone end pair mappings indicate same end repeated, while red mappings indicate incorrect orientation of paired ends. (B) Two clone components are used to build this region of the assembly. The green box indicates a reliable overlap region (red would indicate high variation). (C) Orange indicates an incomplete transcript mapping. (D) Six Single molecule genome maps (orange/red) can be compared to in silico digest (purple). Red regions indicate discordance. In this case, a ∼7.5 kb block variation is shared between three maps and the reference, whilst three other maps share two fragments. Furthermore, in the ∼39 kb digest block, all six maps indicate a size of ∼45–47 kb, giving evidence of missing sequence (∼7–8 kb). (E) Comparative analysis between HuRef and YH2 assemblies, reveal this missing sequence (dotted box) as well as the region of variation (Supplementary Figure S1)

Region on GRCh38 Chromosome 11 with variation and missing sequence. (A) Purple clone end pair mappings indicate same end repeated, while red mappings indicate incorrect orientation of paired ends. (B) Two clone components are used to build this region of the assembly. The green box indicates a reliable overlap region (red would indicate high variation). (C) Orange indicates an incomplete transcript mapping. (D) Six Single molecule genome maps (orange/red) can be compared to in silico digest (purple). Red regions indicate discordance. In this case, a ∼7.5 kb block variation is shared between three maps and the reference, whilst three other maps share two fragments. Furthermore, in the ∼39 kb digest block, all six maps indicate a size of ∼45–47 kb, giving evidence of missing sequence (∼7–8 kb). (E) Comparative analysis between HuRef and YH2 assemblies, reveal this missing sequence (dotted box) as well as the region of variation (Supplementary Figure S1) Comparative genome analysis is invaluable for revealing conserved regions between organisms. Uniquely in gEVAL, comparative analysis focuses on genomic alignments among the different assemblies available for the same species (Fig. 1E). This is useful in capturing sequence differences caused by both variation as well as misassembly, and aids the improvement of one assembly with components/guidance from another (Supplementary Figure S1). Unique to gEVAL, it integrates general annotation with long range information produced from recent technologies such as single molecule genome/optical maps (Howe and Wood, 2015; Teague ; Supplementary Table S2). These maps prove invaluable for scaffolding assemblies but are also useful for capturing genome-wide structural variation (Mak ) (Fig. 1D). In addition to presenting evidence, gEVAL can suggest specific sequences from an aligned resource to fill reference gaps, or can suggest inversions or other rearrangements such as expansions or contractions of tandem repeats.

3 Conclusion

gEVAL is a web-based browser that allows easy detailed evaluation of genome assemblies through its tools and pre-computed analyses, and suggestion of fixes. It is a key tool used by the GRC for the improvement of the primary vertebrate reference genomes. It is widely used externally for evaluating detailed regions of these genomes in different assembly versions, and also by other reference assembly projects, e.g. the respective international genome consortiums of pig (Groenen ; Warr ), chicken (Schmid ) and mouse (Adams ). To enable this use the gEVAL code can be downloaded (see Availability and Implementation Section) and installed alongside an Ensembl installation for any other genome assembly.
  14 in total

Review 1.  An overview of Ensembl.

Authors:  Ewan Birney; T Daniel Andrews; Paul Bevan; Mario Caccamo; Yuan Chen; Laura Clarke; Guy Coates; James Cuff; Val Curwen; Tim Cutts; Thomas Down; Eduardo Eyras; Xose M Fernandez-Suarez; Paul Gane; Brian Gibbins; James Gilbert; Martin Hammond; Hans-Rudolf Hotz; Vivek Iyer; Kerstin Jekosch; Andreas Kahari; Arek Kasprzyk; Damian Keefe; Stephen Keenan; Heikki Lehvaslaiho; Graham McVicker; Craig Melsopp; Patrick Meidl; Emmanuel Mongin; Roger Pettett; Simon Potter; Glenn Proctor; Mark Rae; Steve Searle; Guy Slater; Damian Smedley; James Smith; Will Spooner; Arne Stabenau; James Stalker; Roy Storey; Abel Ureta-Vidal; K Cara Woodwark; Graham Cameron; Richard Durbin; Anthony Cox; Tim Hubbard; Michele Clamp
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2004-04-12       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  High-resolution human genome structure by single-molecule analysis.

Authors:  Brian Teague; Michael S Waterman; Steven Goldstein; Konstantinos Potamousis; Shiguo Zhou; Susan Reslewic; Deepayan Sarkar; Anton Valouev; Christopher Churas; Jeffrey M Kidd; Scott Kohn; Rodney Runnheim; Casey Lamers; Dan Forrest; Michael A Newton; Evan E Eichler; Marijo Kent-First; Urvashi Surti; Miron Livny; David C Schwartz
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Extensive sequencing of seven human genomes to characterize benchmark reference materials.

Authors:  Justin M Zook; David Catoe; Jennifer McDaniel; Lindsay Vang; Noah Spies; Arend Sidow; Ziming Weng; Yuling Liu; Christopher E Mason; Noah Alexander; Elizabeth Henaff; Alexa B R McIntyre; Dhruva Chandramohan; Feng Chen; Erich Jaeger; Ali Moshrefi; Khoa Pham; William Stedman; Tiffany Liang; Michael Saghbini; Zeljko Dzakula; Alex Hastie; Han Cao; Gintaras Deikus; Eric Schadt; Robert Sebra; Ali Bashir; Rebecca M Truty; Christopher C Chang; Natali Gulbahce; Keyan Zhao; Srinka Ghosh; Fiona Hyland; Yutao Fu; Mark Chaisson; Chunlin Xiao; Jonathan Trow; Stephen T Sherry; Alexander W Zaranek; Madeleine Ball; Jason Bobe; Preston Estep; George M Church; Patrick Marks; Sofia Kyriazopoulou-Panagiotopoulou; Grace X Y Zheng; Michael Schnall-Levin; Heather S Ordonez; Patrice A Mudivarti; Kristina Giorda; Ying Sheng; Karoline Bjarnesdatter Rypdal; Marc Salit
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 6.444

4.  Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Modernizing reference genome assemblies.

Authors:  Deanna M Church; Valerie A Schneider; Tina Graves; Katherine Auger; Fiona Cunningham; Nathan Bouk; Hsiu-Chuan Chen; Richa Agarwala; William M McLaren; Graham R S Ritchie; Derek Albracht; Milinn Kremitzki; Susan Rock; Holland Kotkiewicz; Colin Kremitzki; Aye Wollam; Lee Trani; Lucinda Fulton; Robert Fulton; Lucy Matthews; Siobhan Whitehead; Will Chow; James Torrance; Matthew Dunn; Glenn Harden; Glen Threadgold; Jonathan Wood; Joanna Collins; Paul Heath; Guy Griffiths; Sarah Pelan; Darren Grafham; Evan E Eichler; George Weinstock; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson; Kerstin Howe; Paul Flicek; Tim Hubbard
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 8.029

6.  Extensive error in the number of genes inferred from draft genome assemblies.

Authors:  James F Denton; Jose Lugo-Martinez; Abraham E Tucker; Daniel R Schrider; Wesley C Warren; Matthew W Hahn
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Analyses of pig genomes provide insight into porcine demography and evolution.

Authors:  Martien A M Groenen; Alan L Archibald; Hirohide Uenishi; Christopher K Tuggle; Yasuhiro Takeuchi; Max F Rothschild; Claire Rogel-Gaillard; Chankyu Park; Denis Milan; Hendrik-Jan Megens; Shengting Li; Denis M Larkin; Heebal Kim; Laurent A F Frantz; Mario Caccamo; Hyeonju Ahn; Bronwen L Aken; Anna Anselmo; Christian Anthon; Loretta Auvil; Bouabid Badaoui; Craig W Beattie; Christian Bendixen; Daniel Berman; Frank Blecha; Jonas Blomberg; Lars Bolund; Mirte Bosse; Sara Botti; Zhan Bujie; Megan Bystrom; Boris Capitanu; Denise Carvalho-Silva; Patrick Chardon; Celine Chen; Ryan Cheng; Sang-Haeng Choi; William Chow; Richard C Clark; Christopher Clee; Richard P M A Crooijmans; Harry D Dawson; Patrice Dehais; Fioravante De Sapio; Bert Dibbits; Nizar Drou; Zhi-Qiang Du; Kellye Eversole; João Fadista; Susan Fairley; Thomas Faraut; Geoffrey J Faulkner; Katie E Fowler; Merete Fredholm; Eric Fritz; James G R Gilbert; Elisabetta Giuffra; Jan Gorodkin; Darren K Griffin; Jennifer L Harrow; Alexander Hayward; Kerstin Howe; Zhi-Liang Hu; Sean J Humphray; Toby Hunt; Henrik Hornshøj; Jin-Tae Jeon; Patric Jern; Matthew Jones; Jerzy Jurka; Hiroyuki Kanamori; Ronan Kapetanovic; Jaebum Kim; Jae-Hwan Kim; Kyu-Won Kim; Tae-Hun Kim; Greger Larson; Kyooyeol Lee; Kyung-Tai Lee; Richard Leggett; Harris A Lewin; Yingrui Li; Wansheng Liu; Jane E Loveland; Yao Lu; Joan K Lunney; Jian Ma; Ole Madsen; Katherine Mann; Lucy Matthews; Stuart McLaren; Takeya Morozumi; Michael P Murtaugh; Jitendra Narayan; Dinh Truong Nguyen; Peixiang Ni; Song-Jung Oh; Suneel Onteru; Frank Panitz; Eung-Woo Park; Hong-Seog Park; Geraldine Pascal; Yogesh Paudel; Miguel Perez-Enciso; Ricardo Ramirez-Gonzalez; James M Reecy; Sandra Rodriguez-Zas; Gary A Rohrer; Lauretta Rund; Yongming Sang; Kyle Schachtschneider; Joshua G Schraiber; John Schwartz; Linda Scobie; Carol Scott; Stephen Searle; Bertrand Servin; Bruce R Southey; Goran Sperber; Peter Stadler; Jonathan V Sweedler; Hakim Tafer; Bo Thomsen; Rashmi Wali; Jian Wang; Jun Wang; Simon White; Xun Xu; Martine Yerle; Guojie Zhang; Jianguo Zhang; Jie Zhang; Shuhong Zhao; Jane Rogers; Carol Churcher; Lawrence B Schook
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Variation analysis and gene annotation of eight MHC haplotypes: the MHC Haplotype Project.

Authors:  Roger Horton; Richard Gibson; Penny Coggill; Marcos Miretti; Richard J Allcock; Jeff Almeida; Simon Forbes; James G R Gilbert; Karen Halls; Jennifer L Harrow; Elizabeth Hart; Kevin Howe; David K Jackson; Sophie Palmer; Anne N Roberts; Sarah Sims; C Andrew Stewart; James A Traherne; Steve Trevanion; Laurens Wilming; Jane Rogers; Pieter J de Jong; John F Elliott; Stephen Sawcer; John A Todd; John Trowsdale; Stephan Beck
Journal:  Immunogenetics       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 2.846

9.  Identification of Low-Confidence Regions in the Pig Reference Genome (Sscrofa10.2).

Authors:  Amanda Warr; Christelle Robert; David Hume; Alan L Archibald; Nader Deeb; Mick Watson
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  Third Report on Chicken Genes and Chromosomes 2015.

Authors:  Michael Schmid; Jacqueline Smith; David W Burt; Bronwen L Aken; Parker B Antin; Alan L Archibald; Chris Ashwell; Perry J Blackshear; Clarissa Boschiero; C Titus Brown; Shane C Burgess; Hans H Cheng; William Chow; Derrick J Coble; Amanda Cooksey; Richard P M A Crooijmans; Joana Damas; Richard V N Davis; Dirk-Jan de Koning; Mary E Delany; Thomas Derrien; Takele T Desta; Ian C Dunn; Matthew Dunn; Hans Ellegren; Lél Eöry; Ionas Erb; Marta Farré; Mario Fasold; Damarius Fleming; Paul Flicek; Katie E Fowler; Laure Frésard; David P Froman; Valerie Garceau; Paul P Gardner; Almas A Gheyas; Darren K Griffin; Martien A M Groenen; Thomas Haaf; Olivier Hanotte; Alan Hart; Julien Häsler; S Blair Hedges; Jana Hertel; Kerstin Howe; Allen Hubbard; David A Hume; Pete Kaiser; Darek Kedra; Stephen J Kemp; Christophe Klopp; Kalmia E Kniel; Richard Kuo; Sandrine Lagarrigue; Susan J Lamont; Denis M Larkin; Raman A Lawal; Sarah M Markland; Fiona McCarthy; Heather A McCormack; Marla C McPherson; Akira Motegi; Stefan A Muljo; Andrea Münsterberg; Rishi Nag; Indrajit Nanda; Michael Neuberger; Anne Nitsche; Cedric Notredame; Harry Noyes; Rebecca O'Connor; Elizabeth A O'Hare; Andrew J Oler; Sheila C Ommeh; Helio Pais; Michael Persia; Frédérique Pitel; Likit Preeyanon; Pablo Prieto Barja; Elizabeth M Pritchett; Douglas D Rhoads; Charmaine M Robinson; Michael N Romanov; Max Rothschild; Pierre-François Roux; Carl J Schmidt; Alisa-Sophia Schneider; Matthew G Schwartz; Steve M Searle; Michael A Skinner; Craig A Smith; Peter F Stadler; Tammy E Steeves; Claus Steinlein; Liang Sun; Minoru Takata; Igor Ulitsky; Qing Wang; Ying Wang; Wesley C Warren; Jonathan M D Wood; David Wragg; Huaijun Zhou
Journal:  Cytogenet Genome Res       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 1.636

View more
  38 in total

1.  The genome sequences of the male and female green-veined white, Pieris napi (Linnaeus, 1758).

Authors:  Konrad Lohse; Alex Hayward; Sam Ebdon
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2021-10-26

2.  The genome sequence of the grizzled skipper, Pyrgus malvae (Linnaeus, 1758).

Authors:  Alex Hayward; Roger Vila; Konrad Lohse; Dominik Laetsch
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2022-03-29

3.  The gene-rich genome of the scallop Pecten maximus.

Authors:  Nathan J Kenny; Shane A McCarthy; Olga Dudchenko; Katherine James; Emma Betteridge; Craig Corton; Jale Dolucan; Dan Mead; Karen Oliver; Arina D Omer; Sarah Pelan; Yan Ryan; Ying Sims; Jason Skelton; Michelle Smith; James Torrance; David Weisz; Anil Wipat; Erez L Aiden; Kerstin Howe; Suzanne T Williams
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 6.524

4.  The genome sequence of the Eurasian river otter, Lutra lutra Linnaeus 1758.

Authors:  Dan Mead; Frank Hailer; Elisabeth Chadwick; Roberto Portela Miguez; Michelle Smith; Craig Corton; Karen Oliver; Jason Skelton; Emma Betteridge; Jale Doulcan Doulcan; Olga Dudchenko; Arina Omer; David Weisz; Erez Lieberman Aiden; Shane McCarthy; Kerstin Howe; Ying Sims; James Torrance; Alan Tracey; Richard Challis; Richard Durbin; Mark Blaxter
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2020-02-19

5.  Towards complete and error-free genome assemblies of all vertebrate species.

Authors:  Arang Rhie; Shane A McCarthy; Olivier Fedrigo; Joana Damas; Giulio Formenti; Sergey Koren; Marcela Uliano-Silva; William Chow; Arkarachai Fungtammasan; Juwan Kim; Chul Lee; Byung June Ko; Mark Chaisson; Gregory L Gedman; Lindsey J Cantin; Francoise Thibaud-Nissen; Leanne Haggerty; Iliana Bista; Michelle Smith; Bettina Haase; Jacquelyn Mountcastle; Sylke Winkler; Sadye Paez; Jason Howard; Sonja C Vernes; Tanya M Lama; Frank Grutzner; Wesley C Warren; Christopher N Balakrishnan; Dave Burt; Julia M George; Matthew T Biegler; David Iorns; Andrew Digby; Daryl Eason; Bruce Robertson; Taylor Edwards; Mark Wilkinson; George Turner; Axel Meyer; Andreas F Kautt; Paolo Franchini; H William Detrich; Hannes Svardal; Maximilian Wagner; Gavin J P Naylor; Martin Pippel; Milan Malinsky; Mark Mooney; Maria Simbirsky; Brett T Hannigan; Trevor Pesout; Marlys Houck; Ann Misuraca; Sarah B Kingan; Richard Hall; Zev Kronenberg; Ivan Sović; Christopher Dunn; Zemin Ning; Alex Hastie; Joyce Lee; Siddarth Selvaraj; Richard E Green; Nicholas H Putnam; Ivo Gut; Jay Ghurye; Erik Garrison; Ying Sims; Joanna Collins; Sarah Pelan; James Torrance; Alan Tracey; Jonathan Wood; Robel E Dagnew; Dengfeng Guan; Sarah E London; David F Clayton; Claudio V Mello; Samantha R Friedrich; Peter V Lovell; Ekaterina Osipova; Farooq O Al-Ajli; Simona Secomandi; Heebal Kim; Constantina Theofanopoulou; Michael Hiller; Yang Zhou; Robert S Harris; Kateryna D Makova; Paul Medvedev; Jinna Hoffman; Patrick Masterson; Karen Clark; Fergal Martin; Kevin Howe; Paul Flicek; Brian P Walenz; Woori Kwak; Hiram Clawson; Mark Diekhans; Luis Nassar; Benedict Paten; Robert H S Kraus; Andrew J Crawford; M Thomas P Gilbert; Guojie Zhang; Byrappa Venkatesh; Robert W Murphy; Klaus-Peter Koepfli; Beth Shapiro; Warren E Johnson; Federica Di Palma; Tomas Marques-Bonet; Emma C Teeling; Tandy Warnow; Jennifer Marshall Graves; Oliver A Ryder; David Haussler; Stephen J O'Brien; Jonas Korlach; Harris A Lewin; Kerstin Howe; Eugene W Myers; Richard Durbin; Adam M Phillippy; Erich D Jarvis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  The genome sequence of the channel bull blenny, Cottoperca gobio (Günther, 1861).

Authors:  Iliana Bista; Shane A McCarthy; Jonathan Wood; Zemin Ning; H William Detrich Iii; Thomas Desvignes; John Postlethwait; William Chow; Kerstin Howe; James Torrance; Michelle Smith; Karen Oliver; Eric A Miska; Richard Durbin
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2020-06-24

7.  The genome sequence of the eastern grey squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis Gmelin, 1788.

Authors:  Dan Mead; Kathryn Fingland; Rachel Cripps; Roberto Portela Miguez; Michelle Smith; Craig Corton; Karen Oliver; Jason Skelton; Emma Betteridge; Jale Doulcan; Michael A Quail; Shane A McCarthy; Kerstin Howe; Ying Sims; James Torrance; Alan Tracey; Richard Challis; Richard Durbin; Mark Blaxter
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2020-02-13

8.  A haplotype-resolved, de novo genome assembly for the wood tiger moth (Arctia plantaginis) through trio binning.

Authors:  Eugenie C Yen; Shane A McCarthy; Juan A Galarza; Tomas N Generalovic; Sarah Pelan; Petr Nguyen; Joana I Meier; Ian A Warren; Johanna Mappes; Richard Durbin; Chris D Jiggins
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 6.524

9.  An improved pig reference genome sequence to enable pig genetics and genomics research.

Authors:  Amanda Warr; Nabeel Affara; Bronwen Aken; Hamid Beiki; Derek M Bickhart; Konstantinos Billis; William Chow; Lel Eory; Heather A Finlayson; Paul Flicek; Carlos G Girón; Darren K Griffin; Richard Hall; Greg Hannum; Thibaut Hourlier; Kerstin Howe; David A Hume; Osagie Izuogu; Kristi Kim; Sergey Koren; Haibou Liu; Nancy Manchanda; Fergal J Martin; Dan J Nonneman; Rebecca E O'Connor; Adam M Phillippy; Gary A Rohrer; Benjamin D Rosen; Laurie A Rund; Carole A Sargent; Lawrence B Schook; Steven G Schroeder; Ariel S Schwartz; Ben M Skinner; Richard Talbot; Elizabeth Tseng; Christopher K Tuggle; Mick Watson; Timothy P L Smith; Alan L Archibald
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 6.524

10.  Construction of Whole Genomes from Scaffolds Using Single Cell Strand-Seq Data.

Authors:  Mark Hills; Ester Falconer; Kieran O'Neill; Ashley D Sanders; Kerstin Howe; Victor Guryev; Peter M Lansdorp
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.