Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.

DNA sequencing has been revolutionized by the development of high-throughput sequencing technologies. Plummeting costs and the massive throughput capacities of second and third generation sequencing platforms have transformed many fields of biological research. Concurrently, new data processing pipe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zhiqiang Wu, Luke R Tembrock, Song Ge
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4320078?pdf=render
_version_ 1818478951254720512
author Zhiqiang Wu
Luke R Tembrock
Song Ge
author_facet Zhiqiang Wu
Luke R Tembrock
Song Ge
author_sort Zhiqiang Wu
collection DOAJ
description DNA sequencing has been revolutionized by the development of high-throughput sequencing technologies. Plummeting costs and the massive throughput capacities of second and third generation sequencing platforms have transformed many fields of biological research. Concurrently, new data processing pipelines made rapid de novo genome assemblies possible. However, high quality data are critically important for all investigations in the genomic era. We used chloroplast genomes of one Oryza species (O. australiensis) to compare differences in sequence quality: one genome (GU592209) was obtained through Illumina sequencing and reference-guided assembly and the other genome (KJ830774) was obtained via target enrichment libraries and shotgun sequencing. Based on the whole genome alignment, GU592209 was more similar to the reference genome (O. sativa: AY522330) with 99.2% sequence identity (SI value) compared with the 98.8% SI values in the KJ830774 genome; whereas the opposite result was obtained when the SI values in coding and noncoding regions of GU592209 and KJ830774 were compared. Additionally, the junctions of two single copies and repeat copies in the chloroplast genome exhibited differences. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted using these sequences, and the different data sets yielded dissimilar topologies: phylogenetic replacements of the two individuals were remarkably different based on whole genome sequencing or SNP data and insertions and deletions (indels) data. Thus, we concluded that the genomic composition of GU592209 was heterogeneous in coding and non-coding regions. These findings should impel biologists to carefully consider the quality of sequencing and assembly when working with next-generation data.
first_indexed 2024-12-10T09:54:39Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e93d655d42b6498e9b0e75e25cd6e0e4
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T09:54:39Z
publishDate 2015-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-e93d655d42b6498e9b0e75e25cd6e0e42022-12-22T01:53:32ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01102e011801910.1371/journal.pone.0118019Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.Zhiqiang WuLuke R TembrockSong GeDNA sequencing has been revolutionized by the development of high-throughput sequencing technologies. Plummeting costs and the massive throughput capacities of second and third generation sequencing platforms have transformed many fields of biological research. Concurrently, new data processing pipelines made rapid de novo genome assemblies possible. However, high quality data are critically important for all investigations in the genomic era. We used chloroplast genomes of one Oryza species (O. australiensis) to compare differences in sequence quality: one genome (GU592209) was obtained through Illumina sequencing and reference-guided assembly and the other genome (KJ830774) was obtained via target enrichment libraries and shotgun sequencing. Based on the whole genome alignment, GU592209 was more similar to the reference genome (O. sativa: AY522330) with 99.2% sequence identity (SI value) compared with the 98.8% SI values in the KJ830774 genome; whereas the opposite result was obtained when the SI values in coding and noncoding regions of GU592209 and KJ830774 were compared. Additionally, the junctions of two single copies and repeat copies in the chloroplast genome exhibited differences. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted using these sequences, and the different data sets yielded dissimilar topologies: phylogenetic replacements of the two individuals were remarkably different based on whole genome sequencing or SNP data and insertions and deletions (indels) data. Thus, we concluded that the genomic composition of GU592209 was heterogeneous in coding and non-coding regions. These findings should impel biologists to carefully consider the quality of sequencing and assembly when working with next-generation data.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4320078?pdf=render
spellingShingle Zhiqiang Wu
Luke R Tembrock
Song Ge
Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.
PLoS ONE
title Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.
title_full Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.
title_fullStr Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.
title_full_unstemmed Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.
title_short Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes.
title_sort are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly an example from two chloroplast genomes
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4320078?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT zhiqiangwu aredifferencesingenomicdatasetsduetotruebiologicalvariantsorerrorsingenomeassemblyanexamplefromtwochloroplastgenomes
AT lukertembrock aredifferencesingenomicdatasetsduetotruebiologicalvariantsorerrorsingenomeassemblyanexamplefromtwochloroplastgenomes
AT songge aredifferencesingenomicdatasetsduetotruebiologicalvariantsorerrorsingenomeassemblyanexamplefromtwochloroplastgenomes