↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of methods for library construction and short read annotation of shellfish viral metagenomes

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Genomics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of methods for library construction and short read annotation of shellfish viral metagenomes
Published in
Genes & Genomics, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13258-017-0629-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong-Ying Wei, Sheng Huang, Jiang-Yong Wang, Fang Gao, Jing-Zhe Jiang

Abstract

The emergence and widespread use of high-throughput sequencing technologies have promoted metagenomic studies on environmental or animal samples. Library construction for metagenome sequencing and annotation of the produced sequence reads are important steps in such studies and influence the quality of metagenomic data. In this study, we collected some marine mollusk samples, such as Crassostrea hongkongensis, Chlamys farreri, and Ruditapes philippinarum, from coastal areas in South China. These samples were divided into two batches to compare two library construction methods for shellfish viral metagenome. Our analysis showed that reverse-transcribing RNA into cDNA and then amplifying it simultaneously with DNA by whole genome amplification (WGA) yielded a larger amount of DNA compared to using only WGA or WTA (whole transcriptome amplification). Moreover, higher quality libraries were obtained by agarose gel extraction rather than with AMPure bead size selection. However, the latter can also provide good results if combined with the adjustment of the filter parameters. This, together with its simplicity, makes it a viable alternative. Finally, we compared three annotation tools (BLAST, DIAMOND, and Taxonomer) and two reference databases (NCBI's NR and Uniprot's Uniref). Considering the limitations of computing resources and data transfer speed, we propose the use of DIAMOND with Uniref for annotating metagenomic short reads as its running speed can guarantee a good annotation rate. This study may serve as a useful reference for selecting methods for Shellfish viral metagenome library construction and read annotation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 23%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Genomics
#85
of 661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,753
of 444,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Genomics
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 661 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 444,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.