转录组学的敏感性:不同样本和方法改变了海湾琵琶鱼(Syngnathus scovelli)的结论。

IF 3 2区 生物学 Q2 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Bernadette D Johnson, Emily Rose, Adam G Jones
{"title":"转录组学的敏感性:不同样本和方法改变了海湾琵琶鱼(Syngnathus scovelli)的结论。","authors":"Bernadette D Johnson, Emily Rose, Adam G Jones","doi":"10.1093/jhered/esae067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Transcriptome analysis has become a central tool in evolutionary and functional genomics. However, variation among biological samples and analysis techniques can greatly influence results, potentially compromising insights into the phenomenon under study. Here, we evaluate differences in the brain transcriptome between female and male Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli). We perform comparisons between results from entire pipelines for brain transcriptome assembly, quantification, and analysis. We also offer a unique biological comparison between two sampling instances (Redfish Bay: n = 15, Port Lavaca: n = 7). Our results demonstrate crucial shortcomings with current experimental approaches. We found high variation within our results that was driven by both technical differences between pipelines and biological differences between pipefish samples. In our analysis of highly expressed genes, we found that the choice of methods influenced the degree of contamination or noise included in the identified genes. Notably, genes identified within the same pipeline were more similar than any other comparison. Our differential expression analysis revealed that both methodology and sampling location influenced the quantity and consistency of statistically significant transcripts. In the context of these results, we offer modifications to current practices that may increase the robustness of transcriptome-based conclusions. In particular, the use of a reference-guided assembly and an increase in sample sizes are likely to improve resistance to noise or error.</p>","PeriodicalId":54811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Heredity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity of transcriptomics: Different samples and methodology alter conclusions in Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli).\",\"authors\":\"Bernadette D Johnson, Emily Rose, Adam G Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jhered/esae067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Transcriptome analysis has become a central tool in evolutionary and functional genomics. However, variation among biological samples and analysis techniques can greatly influence results, potentially compromising insights into the phenomenon under study. Here, we evaluate differences in the brain transcriptome between female and male Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli). We perform comparisons between results from entire pipelines for brain transcriptome assembly, quantification, and analysis. We also offer a unique biological comparison between two sampling instances (Redfish Bay: n = 15, Port Lavaca: n = 7). Our results demonstrate crucial shortcomings with current experimental approaches. We found high variation within our results that was driven by both technical differences between pipelines and biological differences between pipefish samples. In our analysis of highly expressed genes, we found that the choice of methods influenced the degree of contamination or noise included in the identified genes. Notably, genes identified within the same pipeline were more similar than any other comparison. Our differential expression analysis revealed that both methodology and sampling location influenced the quantity and consistency of statistically significant transcripts. In the context of these results, we offer modifications to current practices that may increase the robustness of transcriptome-based conclusions. In particular, the use of a reference-guided assembly and an increase in sample sizes are likely to improve resistance to noise or error.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Heredity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Heredity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esae067\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Heredity","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esae067","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

转录组分析已成为进化和功能基因组学的核心工具。然而,生物样本和分析技术之间的差异会极大地影响分析结果,从而有可能影响对所研究现象的深入了解。在这里,我们评估了雌性和雄性海湾琵琶鱼(Syngnathus scovelli)大脑转录组的差异。我们对整个脑转录组组装、量化和分析流水线的结果进行了比较。我们还对两个取样实例(红鱼湾:n = 15;拉瓦卡港:n = 7)进行了独特的生物学比较。我们的结果表明了当前实验方法的关键缺陷。我们发现,由于管道之间的技术差异和琵琶鱼样本之间的生物差异,我们的结果存在很大差异。在对高表达基因的分析中,我们发现方法的选择会影响已鉴定基因的污染或噪音程度。值得注意的是,在同一管道中鉴定出的基因比其他比较方法更相似。我们的差异表达分析表明,方法和取样位置都会影响具有统计学意义的转录本的数量和一致性。根据这些结果,我们对目前的做法提出了修改意见,以提高基于转录组的结论的稳健性。特别是,使用参考文献指导的组装和增加样本量可能会提高对噪音或误差的抵抗力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensitivity of transcriptomics: Different samples and methodology alter conclusions in Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli).

Transcriptome analysis has become a central tool in evolutionary and functional genomics. However, variation among biological samples and analysis techniques can greatly influence results, potentially compromising insights into the phenomenon under study. Here, we evaluate differences in the brain transcriptome between female and male Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli). We perform comparisons between results from entire pipelines for brain transcriptome assembly, quantification, and analysis. We also offer a unique biological comparison between two sampling instances (Redfish Bay: n = 15, Port Lavaca: n = 7). Our results demonstrate crucial shortcomings with current experimental approaches. We found high variation within our results that was driven by both technical differences between pipelines and biological differences between pipefish samples. In our analysis of highly expressed genes, we found that the choice of methods influenced the degree of contamination or noise included in the identified genes. Notably, genes identified within the same pipeline were more similar than any other comparison. Our differential expression analysis revealed that both methodology and sampling location influenced the quantity and consistency of statistically significant transcripts. In the context of these results, we offer modifications to current practices that may increase the robustness of transcriptome-based conclusions. In particular, the use of a reference-guided assembly and an increase in sample sizes are likely to improve resistance to noise or error.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Heredity
Journal of Heredity 生物-遗传学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.50%
发文量
63
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Over the last 100 years, the Journal of Heredity has established and maintained a tradition of scholarly excellence in the publication of genetics research. Virtually every major figure in the field has contributed to the journal. Established in 1903, Journal of Heredity covers organismal genetics across a wide range of disciplines and taxa. Articles include such rapidly advancing fields as conservation genetics of endangered species, population structure and phylogeography, molecular evolution and speciation, molecular genetics of disease resistance in plants and animals, genetic biodiversity and relevant computer programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信