Peipei Wang1,2, Fanrui Meng1,2, Bethany M Moore1,3, Shin-Han Shiu4,5,6,7. 1. Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. 2. DOE Great Lake Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. 3. The Ecology, Evolution, and Behavioral Biology Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. 4. Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. shius@msu.edu. 5. DOE Great Lake Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. shius@msu.edu. 6. The Ecology, Evolution, and Behavioral Biology Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. shius@msu.edu. 7. Department of Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. shius@msu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Availability of plant genome sequences has led to significant advances. However, with few exceptions, the great majority of existing genome assemblies are derived from short read sequencing technologies with highly uneven read coverages indicative of sequencing and assembly issues that could significantly impact any downstream analysis of plant genomes. In tomato for example, 0.6% (5.1 Mb) and 9.7% (79.6 Mb) of short-read based assembly had significantly higher and lower coverage compared to background, respectively. RESULTS: To understand what the causes may be for such uneven coverage, we first established machine learning models capable of predicting genomic regions with variable coverages and found that high coverage regions tend to have higher simple sequence repeat and tandem gene densities compared to background regions. To determine if the high coverage regions were misassembled, we examined a recently available tomato long-read based assembly and found that 27.8% (1.41 Mb) of high coverage regions were potentially misassembled of duplicate sequences, compared to 1.4% in background regions. In addition, using a predictive model that can distinguish correctly and incorrectly assembled high coverage regions, we found that misassembled, high coverage regions tend to be flanked by simple sequence repeats, pseudogenes, and transposon elements. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insights on the causes of variable coverage regions and a quantitative assessment of factors contributing to plant genome misassembly when using short reads and the generality of these causes and factors should be tested further in other species.
BACKGROUND: Availability of plant genome sequences has led to significant advances. However, with few exceptions, the great majority of existing genome assemblies are derived from short read sequencing technologies with highly uneven read coverages indicative of sequencing and assembly issues that could significantly impact any downstream analysis of plant genomes. In tomato for example, 0.6% (5.1 Mb) and 9.7% (79.6 Mb) of short-read based assembly had significantly higher and lower coverage compared to background, respectively. RESULTS: To understand what the causes may be for such uneven coverage, we first established machine learning models capable of predicting genomic regions with variable coverages and found that high coverage regions tend to have higher simple sequence repeat and tandem gene densities compared to background regions. To determine if the high coverage regions were misassembled, we examined a recently available tomato long-read based assembly and found that 27.8% (1.41 Mb) of high coverage regions were potentially misassembled of duplicate sequences, compared to 1.4% in background regions. In addition, using a predictive model that can distinguish correctly and incorrectly assembled high coverage regions, we found that misassembled, high coverage regions tend to be flanked by simple sequence repeats, pseudogenes, and transposon elements. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insights on the causes of variable coverage regions and a quantitative assessment of factors contributing to plant genome misassembly when using short reads and the generality of these causes and factors should be tested further in other species.
Authors: Stefan Kurtz; Adam Phillippy; Arthur L Delcher; Michael Smoot; Martin Shumway; Corina Antonescu; Steven L Salzberg Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2004-01-30 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Yuki Matsuba; Thuong T H Nguyen; Krystle Wiegert; Vasiliki Falara; Eliana Gonzales-Vigil; Bryan Leong; Petra Schäfer; David Kudrna; Rod A Wing; Anthony M Bolger; Björn Usadel; Alain Tissier; Alisdair R Fernie; Cornelius S Barry; Eran Pichersky Journal: Plant Cell Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 11.277
Authors: John Eid; Adrian Fehr; Jeremy Gray; Khai Luong; John Lyle; Geoff Otto; Paul Peluso; David Rank; Primo Baybayan; Brad Bettman; Arkadiusz Bibillo; Keith Bjornson; Bidhan Chaudhuri; Frederick Christians; Ronald Cicero; Sonya Clark; Ravindra Dalal; Alex Dewinter; John Dixon; Mathieu Foquet; Alfred Gaertner; Paul Hardenbol; Cheryl Heiner; Kevin Hester; David Holden; Gregory Kearns; Xiangxu Kong; Ronald Kuse; Yves Lacroix; Steven Lin; Paul Lundquist; Congcong Ma; Patrick Marks; Mark Maxham; Devon Murphy; Insil Park; Thang Pham; Michael Phillips; Joy Roy; Robert Sebra; Gene Shen; Jon Sorenson; Austin Tomaney; Kevin Travers; Mark Trulson; John Vieceli; Jeffrey Wegener; Dawn Wu; Alicia Yang; Denis Zaccarin; Peter Zhao; Frank Zhong; Jonas Korlach; Stephen Turner Journal: Science Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Bethany M Moore; Peipei Wang; Pengxiang Fan; Bryan Leong; Craig A Schenck; John P Lloyd; Melissa D Lehti-Shiu; Robert L Last; Eran Pichersky; Shin-Han Shiu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Nemanja Vukašinović; Fatima Cvrčková; Marek Eliáš; Rex Cole; John E Fowler; Viktor Žárský; Lukáš Synek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 3.240