↓ Skip to main content

De novo transcriptome assembly for a non-model species, the blood-sucking bug Triatoma brasiliensis, a vector of Chagas disease

Overview of attention for article published in Genetica, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
De novo transcriptome assembly for a non-model species, the blood-sucking bug Triatoma brasiliensis, a vector of Chagas disease
Published in
Genetica, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10709-014-9790-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Marchant, F. Mougel, C. Almeida, E. Jacquin-Joly, J. Costa, M. Harry

Abstract

High throughput sequencing (HTS) provides new research opportunities for work on non-model organisms, such as differential expression studies between populations exposed to different environmental conditions. However, such transcriptomic studies first require the production of a reference assembly. The choice of sampling procedure, sequencing strategy and assembly workflow is crucial. To develop a reliable reference transcriptome for Triatoma brasiliensis, the major Chagas disease vector in Northeastern Brazil, different de novo assembly protocols were generated using various datasets and software. Both 454 and Illumina sequencing technologies were applied on RNA extracted from antennae and mouthparts from single or pooled individuals. The 454 library yielded 278 Mb. Fifteen Illumina libraries were constructed and yielded nearly 360 million RNA-seq single reads and 46 million RNA-seq paired-end reads for nearly 45 Gb. For the 454 reads, we used three assemblers, Newbler, CAP3 and/or MIRA and for the Illumina reads, the Trinity assembler. Ten assembly workflows were compared using these programs separately or in combination. To compare the assemblies obtained, quantitative and qualitative criteria were used, including contig length, N50, contig number and the percentage of chimeric contigs. Completeness of the assemblies was estimated using the CEGMA pipeline. The best assembly (57,657 contigs, completeness of 80 %, <1 % chimeric contigs) was a hybrid assembly leading to recommend the use of (1) a single individual with large representation of biological tissues, (2) merging both long reads and short paired-end Illumina reads, (3) several assemblers in order to combine the specific advantages of each.

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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 15 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 21%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Unspecified 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 15 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,386,678
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#554
of 713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,337
of 250,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 713 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 250,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.