Cargando…

Quality scores for 32,000 genomes

BACKGROUND: More than 80% of the microbial genomes in GenBank are of ‘draft’ quality (12,553 draft vs. 2,679 finished, as of October, 2013). We have examined all the microbial DNA sequences available for complete, draft, and Sequence Read Archive genomes in GenBank as well as three other major publi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Land, Miriam L, Hyatt, Doug, Jun, Se-Ran, Kora, Guruprasad H, Hauser, Loren J, Lukjancenko, Oksana, Ussery, David W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4334873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780509
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1944-3277-9-20
_version_ 1782358242830057472
author Land, Miriam L
Hyatt, Doug
Jun, Se-Ran
Kora, Guruprasad H
Hauser, Loren J
Lukjancenko, Oksana
Ussery, David W
author_facet Land, Miriam L
Hyatt, Doug
Jun, Se-Ran
Kora, Guruprasad H
Hauser, Loren J
Lukjancenko, Oksana
Ussery, David W
author_sort Land, Miriam L
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: More than 80% of the microbial genomes in GenBank are of ‘draft’ quality (12,553 draft vs. 2,679 finished, as of October, 2013). We have examined all the microbial DNA sequences available for complete, draft, and Sequence Read Archive genomes in GenBank as well as three other major public databases, and assigned quality scores for more than 30,000 prokaryotic genome sequences. RESULTS: Scores were assigned using four categories: the completeness of the assembly, the presence of full-length rRNA genes, tRNA composition and the presence of a set of 102 conserved genes in prokaryotes. Most (~88%) of the genomes had quality scores of 0.8 or better and can be safely used for standard comparative genomics analysis. We compared genomes across factors that may influence the score. We found that although sequencing depth coverage of over 100x did not ensure a better score, sequencing read length was a better indicator of sequencing quality. With few exceptions, most of the 30,000 genomes have nearly all the 102 essential genes. CONCLUSIONS: The score can be used to set thresholds for screening data when analyzing “all published genomes” and reference data is either not available or not applicable. The scores highlighted organisms for which commonly used tools do not perform well. This information can be used to improve tools and to serve a broad group of users as more diverse organisms are sequenced. Unexpectedly, the comparison of predicted tRNAs across 15,000 high quality genomes showed that anticodons beginning with an ‘A’ (codons ending with a ‘U’) are almost non-existent, with the exception of one arginine codon (CGU); this has been noted previously in the literature for a few genomes, but not with the depth found here.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4334873
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43348732015-03-16 Quality scores for 32,000 genomes Land, Miriam L Hyatt, Doug Jun, Se-Ran Kora, Guruprasad H Hauser, Loren J Lukjancenko, Oksana Ussery, David W Stand Genomic Sci Research BACKGROUND: More than 80% of the microbial genomes in GenBank are of ‘draft’ quality (12,553 draft vs. 2,679 finished, as of October, 2013). We have examined all the microbial DNA sequences available for complete, draft, and Sequence Read Archive genomes in GenBank as well as three other major public databases, and assigned quality scores for more than 30,000 prokaryotic genome sequences. RESULTS: Scores were assigned using four categories: the completeness of the assembly, the presence of full-length rRNA genes, tRNA composition and the presence of a set of 102 conserved genes in prokaryotes. Most (~88%) of the genomes had quality scores of 0.8 or better and can be safely used for standard comparative genomics analysis. We compared genomes across factors that may influence the score. We found that although sequencing depth coverage of over 100x did not ensure a better score, sequencing read length was a better indicator of sequencing quality. With few exceptions, most of the 30,000 genomes have nearly all the 102 essential genes. CONCLUSIONS: The score can be used to set thresholds for screening data when analyzing “all published genomes” and reference data is either not available or not applicable. The scores highlighted organisms for which commonly used tools do not perform well. This information can be used to improve tools and to serve a broad group of users as more diverse organisms are sequenced. Unexpectedly, the comparison of predicted tRNAs across 15,000 high quality genomes showed that anticodons beginning with an ‘A’ (codons ending with a ‘U’) are almost non-existent, with the exception of one arginine codon (CGU); this has been noted previously in the literature for a few genomes, but not with the depth found here. BioMed Central 2014-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4334873/ /pubmed/25780509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1944-3277-9-20 Text en Copyright © 2014 Land et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Land, Miriam L
Hyatt, Doug
Jun, Se-Ran
Kora, Guruprasad H
Hauser, Loren J
Lukjancenko, Oksana
Ussery, David W
Quality scores for 32,000 genomes
title Quality scores for 32,000 genomes
title_full Quality scores for 32,000 genomes
title_fullStr Quality scores for 32,000 genomes
title_full_unstemmed Quality scores for 32,000 genomes
title_short Quality scores for 32,000 genomes
title_sort quality scores for 32,000 genomes
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4334873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780509
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1944-3277-9-20
work_keys_str_mv AT landmiriaml qualityscoresfor32000genomes
AT hyattdoug qualityscoresfor32000genomes
AT junseran qualityscoresfor32000genomes
AT koraguruprasadh qualityscoresfor32000genomes
AT hauserlorenj qualityscoresfor32000genomes
AT lukjancenkooksana qualityscoresfor32000genomes
AT usserydavidw qualityscoresfor32000genomes