↓ Skip to main content

Comparative study of de novo assembly and genome-guided assembly strategies for transcriptome reconstruction based on RNA-Seq

Overview of attention for article published in Science China Life Sciences, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
272 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Comparative study of de novo assembly and genome-guided assembly strategies for transcriptome reconstruction based on RNA-Seq
Published in
Science China Life Sciences, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11427-013-4442-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

BingXin Lu, ZhenBing Zeng, TieLiu Shi

Abstract

Transcriptome reconstruction is an important application of RNA-Seq, providing critical information for further analysis of transcriptome. Although RNA-Seq offers the potential to identify the whole picture of transcriptome, it still presents special challenges. To handle these difficulties and reconstruct transcriptome as completely as possible, current computational approaches mainly employ two strategies: de novo assembly and genome-guided assembly. In order to find the similarities and differences between them, we firstly chose five representative assemblers belonging to the two classes respectively, and then investigated and compared their algorithm features in theory and real performances in practice. We found that all the methods can be reduced to graph reduction problems, yet they have different conceptual and practical implementations, thus each assembly method has its specific advantages and disadvantages, performing worse than others in certain aspects while outperforming others in anther aspects at the same time. Finally we merged assemblies of the five assemblers and obtained a much better assembly. Additionally we evaluated an assembler using genome-guided de novo assembly approach, and achieved good performance. Based on these results, we suggest that to obtain a comprehensive set of recovered transcripts, it is better to use a combination of de novo assembly and genome-guided assembly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 272 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
Germany 5 2%
Brazil 4 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 244 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 26%
Researcher 55 20%
Student > Master 46 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 35 13%
Unknown 29 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 133 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 19%
Computer Science 21 8%
Environmental Science 7 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 1%
Other 17 6%
Unknown 37 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2019.
All research outputs
#8,262,193
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#386
of 1,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,983
of 297,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.