禽致病性大肠杆菌两个克隆基因组组装与注释的比较。

IF 3.4 4区 生物学 Q3 MICROBIOLOGY
Yufei Zhao, John Elmerdahl Olsen, Louise Poulsen, Henrik Christensen
{"title":"禽致病性大肠杆菌两个克隆基因组组装与注释的比较。","authors":"Yufei Zhao, John Elmerdahl Olsen, Louise Poulsen, Henrik Christensen","doi":"10.1016/j.resmic.2025.104345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Methods for assembly and annotation of whole genomic sequences were compared for six strains of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Two vertically transferred E. coli clones, represented by three isolates all belonging to pulse field genome electrophoresis (PFGE) type 65- sequence type (ST)95 and three isolates belonging to PFGE type 47- ST131, were selected for Illumina short read sequencing. There was no significant difference between SPAdes and CLC Genomic Workbench for benchmark parameters to assemble the short reads. The six strains were also sequenced by long read sequencing (Nanopore) and these reads were hybrid assembled with the short reads. Unicycler provided a lower number of contigs and higher NG50 compared to Flye. No significant differences between total length of genomes were obtained from the four assemblers. At least 2.1 and 0.9 % of coding gene sequences (CDSs) annotated with Rapid annotations using subsystems technology (RAST) and PROKKA, respectively were wrongly annotated. The errors were most often associated to CDS of shorter length (<150 nt) with functions such as transposases, mobile genetic elements or being hypothetical. The investigation points out the importance of controlling automatic annotations and suggest further work to improve annotations in strains not belonging to the K12 or B lineages.</p>","PeriodicalId":21098,"journal":{"name":"Research in microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"104345"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of genomic assembly and annotation based on two clones of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli.\",\"authors\":\"Yufei Zhao, John Elmerdahl Olsen, Louise Poulsen, Henrik Christensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resmic.2025.104345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Methods for assembly and annotation of whole genomic sequences were compared for six strains of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Two vertically transferred E. coli clones, represented by three isolates all belonging to pulse field genome electrophoresis (PFGE) type 65- sequence type (ST)95 and three isolates belonging to PFGE type 47- ST131, were selected for Illumina short read sequencing. There was no significant difference between SPAdes and CLC Genomic Workbench for benchmark parameters to assemble the short reads. The six strains were also sequenced by long read sequencing (Nanopore) and these reads were hybrid assembled with the short reads. Unicycler provided a lower number of contigs and higher NG50 compared to Flye. No significant differences between total length of genomes were obtained from the four assemblers. At least 2.1 and 0.9 % of coding gene sequences (CDSs) annotated with Rapid annotations using subsystems technology (RAST) and PROKKA, respectively were wrongly annotated. The errors were most often associated to CDS of shorter length (<150 nt) with functions such as transposases, mobile genetic elements or being hypothetical. The investigation points out the importance of controlling automatic annotations and suggest further work to improve annotations in strains not belonging to the K12 or B lineages.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"104345\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2025.104345\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2025.104345","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比较了6株禽致病性大肠杆菌(APEC)全基因组序列的组装和注释方法。选取两个垂直转移的大肠杆菌克隆,分别为脉冲场基因组电泳(PFGE) 65型-序列型(ST)95型和PFGE 47型- ST131型,进行Illumina短读测序。SPAdes和CLC Genomic Workbench在组装短reads的基准参数上无显著差异。对6株菌株进行长读段测序(Nanopore),并与短读段杂交组装。与fly相比,Unicycler提供的组件数量更少,NG50更高。4种组装体的基因组总长度无显著差异。使用子系统技术(RAST)和PROKKA快速注释的编码基因序列(CDSs)分别至少有2.1%和0.9%被错误注释。这些错误通常与较短长度的CDS有关(
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of genomic assembly and annotation based on two clones of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli.

Methods for assembly and annotation of whole genomic sequences were compared for six strains of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Two vertically transferred E. coli clones, represented by three isolates all belonging to pulse field genome electrophoresis (PFGE) type 65- sequence type (ST)95 and three isolates belonging to PFGE type 47- ST131, were selected for Illumina short read sequencing. There was no significant difference between SPAdes and CLC Genomic Workbench for benchmark parameters to assemble the short reads. The six strains were also sequenced by long read sequencing (Nanopore) and these reads were hybrid assembled with the short reads. Unicycler provided a lower number of contigs and higher NG50 compared to Flye. No significant differences between total length of genomes were obtained from the four assemblers. At least 2.1 and 0.9 % of coding gene sequences (CDSs) annotated with Rapid annotations using subsystems technology (RAST) and PROKKA, respectively were wrongly annotated. The errors were most often associated to CDS of shorter length (<150 nt) with functions such as transposases, mobile genetic elements or being hypothetical. The investigation points out the importance of controlling automatic annotations and suggest further work to improve annotations in strains not belonging to the K12 or B lineages.

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
Research in microbiology
Research in microbiology 生物-微生物学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
54
审稿时长
16 days
期刊介绍: Research in Microbiology is the direct descendant of the original Pasteur periodical entitled Annales de l''Institut Pasteur, created in 1887 by Emile Duclaux under the patronage of Louis Pasteur. The Editorial Committee included Chamberland, Grancher, Nocard, Roux and Straus, and the first issue began with Louis Pasteur''s "Lettre sur la Rage" which clearly defines the spirit of the journal:"You have informed me, my dear Duclaux, that you intend to start a monthly collection of articles entitled "Annales de l''Institut Pasteur". You will be rendering a service that will be appreciated by the ever increasing number of young scientists who are attracted to microbiological studies. In your Annales, our laboratory research will of course occupy a central position, but the work from outside groups that you intend to publish will be a source of competitive stimulation for all of us."That first volume included 53 articles as well as critical reviews and book reviews. From that time on, the Annales appeared regularly every month, without interruption, even during the two world wars. Although the journal has undergone many changes over the past 100 years (in the title, the format, the language) reflecting the evolution in scientific publishing, it has consistently maintained the Pasteur tradition by publishing original reports on all aspects of microbiology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信