Title |
Evaluating Characteristics of De Novo Assembly Software on 454 Transcriptome Data: A Simulation Approach
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, February 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0031410 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Marvin Mundry, Erich Bornberg-Bauer, Michael Sammeth, Philine G. D. Feulner |
Abstract |
The quantity of transcriptome data is rapidly increasing for non-model organisms. As sequencing technology advances, focus shifts towards solving bioinformatic challenges, of which sequence read assembly is the first task. Recent studies have compared the performance of different software to establish a best practice for transcriptome assembly. Here, we adapted a simulation approach to evaluate specific features of assembly programs on 454 data. The novelty of our study is that the simulation allows us to calculate a model assembly as reference point for comparison. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Finland | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 5 | 3% |
United States | 4 | 2% |
Brazil | 3 | 2% |
Sweden | 2 | 1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Italy | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Israel | 1 | <1% |
Other | 10 | 5% |
Unknown | 168 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 56 | 28% |
Researcher | 49 | 25% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 17 | 9% |
Student > Master | 16 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
Other | 37 | 19% |
Unknown | 10 | 5% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 127 | 64% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 14% |
Computer Science | 9 | 5% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 2% |
Engineering | 3 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 5% |
Unknown | 18 | 9% |