Cargando…
Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study
The performance of software tools for de novo transcriptome assembly greatly depends on the selection of software parameters. Up to now, the development of de novo transcriptome assembly for prokaryotes has not been as remarkable as that for eukaryotes. In this contribution, Rockhopper2 was used to...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970227/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31801255 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ht8040020 |
_version_ | 1783489475352985600 |
---|---|
author | Caicedo-Montoya, Carlos Pinilla, Laura Toro, León F. Yepes-García, Jeferyd Ríos-Estepa, Rigoberto |
author_facet | Caicedo-Montoya, Carlos Pinilla, Laura Toro, León F. Yepes-García, Jeferyd Ríos-Estepa, Rigoberto |
author_sort | Caicedo-Montoya, Carlos |
collection | PubMed |
description | The performance of software tools for de novo transcriptome assembly greatly depends on the selection of software parameters. Up to now, the development of de novo transcriptome assembly for prokaryotes has not been as remarkable as that for eukaryotes. In this contribution, Rockhopper2 was used to perform a comparative transcriptome analysis of Streptomyces clavuligerus exposed to diverse environmental conditions. The study focused on assessing the incidence of software parameters on software performance for the identification of differentially expressed genes as a final goal. For this, a statistical optimization was performed using the Transrate Assembly Score (TAS). TAS was also used for evaluating the software performance and for comparing it with related tools, e.g., Trinity. Transcriptome redundancy and completeness were also considered for this analysis. Rockhopper2 and Trinity reached a TAS value of 0.55092 and 0.58337, respectively. Trinity assembles transcriptomes with high redundancy, with 55.6% of transcripts having some duplicates. Additionally, we observed that the total number of differentially expressed genes (DEG) and their annotation greatly depends on the method used for removing redundancy and the tools used for transcript quantification. To our knowledge, this is the first work aimed at assessing de novo assembly software for prokaryotic organisms. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6970227 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69702272020-02-04 Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study Caicedo-Montoya, Carlos Pinilla, Laura Toro, León F. Yepes-García, Jeferyd Ríos-Estepa, Rigoberto High Throughput Article The performance of software tools for de novo transcriptome assembly greatly depends on the selection of software parameters. Up to now, the development of de novo transcriptome assembly for prokaryotes has not been as remarkable as that for eukaryotes. In this contribution, Rockhopper2 was used to perform a comparative transcriptome analysis of Streptomyces clavuligerus exposed to diverse environmental conditions. The study focused on assessing the incidence of software parameters on software performance for the identification of differentially expressed genes as a final goal. For this, a statistical optimization was performed using the Transrate Assembly Score (TAS). TAS was also used for evaluating the software performance and for comparing it with related tools, e.g., Trinity. Transcriptome redundancy and completeness were also considered for this analysis. Rockhopper2 and Trinity reached a TAS value of 0.55092 and 0.58337, respectively. Trinity assembles transcriptomes with high redundancy, with 55.6% of transcripts having some duplicates. Additionally, we observed that the total number of differentially expressed genes (DEG) and their annotation greatly depends on the method used for removing redundancy and the tools used for transcript quantification. To our knowledge, this is the first work aimed at assessing de novo assembly software for prokaryotic organisms. MDPI 2019-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6970227/ /pubmed/31801255 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ht8040020 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Caicedo-Montoya, Carlos Pinilla, Laura Toro, León F. Yepes-García, Jeferyd Ríos-Estepa, Rigoberto Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study |
title | Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study |
title_full | Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study |
title_fullStr | Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study |
title_short | Comparative Analysis of Strategies for De Novo Transcriptome Assembly in Prokaryotes: Streptomyces clavuligerus as a Case Study |
title_sort | comparative analysis of strategies for de novo transcriptome assembly in prokaryotes: streptomyces clavuligerus as a case study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970227/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31801255 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ht8040020 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT caicedomontoyacarlos comparativeanalysisofstrategiesfordenovotranscriptomeassemblyinprokaryotesstreptomycesclavuligerusasacasestudy AT pinillalaura comparativeanalysisofstrategiesfordenovotranscriptomeassemblyinprokaryotesstreptomycesclavuligerusasacasestudy AT toroleonf comparativeanalysisofstrategiesfordenovotranscriptomeassemblyinprokaryotesstreptomycesclavuligerusasacasestudy AT yepesgarciajeferyd comparativeanalysisofstrategiesfordenovotranscriptomeassemblyinprokaryotesstreptomycesclavuligerusasacasestudy AT riosesteparigoberto comparativeanalysisofstrategiesfordenovotranscriptomeassemblyinprokaryotesstreptomycesclavuligerusasacasestudy |