Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
BMC Genomics. 2010 Oct 16;11:571. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-571.

Comparing de novo assemblers for 454 transcriptome data.

Author information

1
Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Roche 454 pyrosequencing has become a method of choice for generating transcriptome data from non-model organisms. Once the tens to hundreds of thousands of short (250-450 base) reads have been produced, it is important to correctly assemble these to estimate the sequence of all the transcripts. Most transcriptome assembly projects use only one program for assembling 454 pyrosequencing reads, but there is no evidence that the programs used to date are optimal. We have carried out a systematic comparison of five assemblers (CAP3, MIRA, Newbler, SeqMan and CLC) to establish best practices for transcriptome assemblies, using a new dataset from the parasitic nematode Litomosoides sigmodontis.

RESULTS:

Although no single assembler performed best on all our criteria, Newbler 2.5 gave longer contigs, better alignments to some reference sequences, and was fast and easy to use. SeqMan assemblies performed best on the criterion of recapitulating known transcripts, and had more novel sequence than the other assemblers, but generated an excess of small, redundant contigs. The remaining assemblers all performed almost as well, with the exception of Newbler 2.3 (the version currently used by most assembly projects), which generated assemblies that had significantly lower total length. As different assemblers use different underlying algorithms to generate contigs, we also explored merging of assemblies and found that the merged datasets not only aligned better to reference sequences than individual assemblies, but were also more consistent in the number and size of contigs.

CONCLUSIONS:

Transcriptome assemblies are smaller than genome assemblies and thus should be more computationally tractable, but are often harder because individual contigs can have highly variable read coverage. Comparing single assemblers, Newbler 2.5 performed best on our trial data set, but other assemblers were closely comparable. Combining differently optimal assemblies from different programs however gave a more credible final product, and this strategy is recommended.

PMID:
20950480
PMCID:
PMC3091720
DOI:
10.1186/1471-2164-11-571
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center