Genome Size Versus Genome Assemblies: Are the Genomes Truly Expanded in Polyploid Fungal Symbionts?


Journal

Genome biology and evolution
ISSN: 1759-6653
Titre abrégé: Genome Biol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101509707

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 12 2020
Historique:
accepted: 10 10 2020
entrez: 7 12 2020
pubmed: 8 12 2020
medline: 6 10 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Each day, as the amount of genomic data and bioinformatics resources grows, researchers are increasingly challenged with selecting the most appropriate approach to analyze their data. In addition, the opportunity to undertake comparative genomic analyses is growing rapidly. This is especially true for fungi due to their small genome sizes (i.e., mean 1C = 44.2 Mb). Given these opportunities and aiming to gain novel insights into the evolution of mutualisms, we focus on comparing the quality of whole genome assemblies for fungus-growing ants cultivars (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Attini) and a free-living relative. Our analyses reveal that currently available methodologies and pipelines for analyzing whole-genome sequence data need refining. By using different genome assemblers, we show that the genome assembly size depends on what software is used. This, in turn, impacts gene number predictions, with higher gene numbers correlating positively with genome assembly size. Furthermore, the majority of fungal genome size data currently available are based on estimates derived from whole-genome assemblies generated from short-read genome data, rather than from the more accurate technique of flow cytometry. Here, we estimated the haploid genome sizes of three ant fungal symbionts by flow cytometry using the fungus Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq.) P. Kumm. (1871) as a calibration standard. We found that published genome sizes based on genome assemblies are 2.5- to 3-fold larger than our estimates based on flow cytometry. We, therefore, recommend that flow cytometry is used to precalibrate genome assembly pipelines, to avoid incorrect estimates of genome sizes and ensure robust assemblies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33283863
pii: 5923293
doi: 10.1093/gbe/evaa217
pmc: PMC7719231
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Evaluation Study Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2384-2390

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.

Références

Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 20;8(1):6321
pubmed: 29679020
BMC Genomics. 2014 Feb 08;15:114
pubmed: 24507587
Science. 1983 Jun 3;220(4601):1049-51
pubmed: 17754551
Nat Commun. 2016 Jul 20;7:12233
pubmed: 27436133
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Jun;79(12):3770-8
pubmed: 23584789
Bioinformatics. 2015 Oct 1;31(19):3210-2
pubmed: 26059717
Curr Biol. 2005 Dec 20;15(24):R992-4
pubmed: 16360677
Bioinformatics. 2018 Feb 15;34(4):550-557
pubmed: 29444236
Ann Bot. 2003 Apr;91(5):547-57
pubmed: 12646499
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jan 17;15:34
pubmed: 24438332
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jul 8;44(12):e113
pubmed: 27131372
New Phytol. 2020 Apr;226(2):301-305
pubmed: 31608445
PLoS Biol. 2015 Jul 07;13(7):e1002195
pubmed: 26151137
Genome Res. 2017 May;27(5):768-777
pubmed: 28232478
BMC Genomics. 2018 Jan 15;19(1):48
pubmed: 29334897
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011 Nov 08;10(1):13-26
pubmed: 22064560
Genome Res. 2012 Mar;22(3):549-56
pubmed: 22156294
Gigascience. 2012 Dec 27;1(1):18
pubmed: 23587118
PLoS Pathog. 2011 Sep;7(9):e1002179
pubmed: 21909256
Front Plant Sci. 2014 Aug 26;5:422
pubmed: 25206357
BMC Genomics. 2015 Jul 28;16:553
pubmed: 26215153
New Phytol. 2018 Feb;217(3):1213-1229
pubmed: 29315638
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Mar 29;113(13):3567-72
pubmed: 26976598
BMC Genomics. 2014;15 Suppl 9:S10
pubmed: 25521762
Mol Plant Pathol. 2015 Dec;16(9):1006-10
pubmed: 25784533
Gigascience. 2013 Jul 22;2(1):10
pubmed: 23870653
Genome Res. 2011 Dec;21(12):2224-41
pubmed: 21926179
Stud Mycol. 2017 Mar;86:1-28
pubmed: 28348446
Fungal Genet Biol. 2014 Apr;65:69-80
pubmed: 24530791
Ann Bot. 2005 Jan;95(1):255-60
pubmed: 15596473
Nat Commun. 2016 Aug 25;7:12679
pubmed: 27557866
IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2013 May-Jun;10(3):645-56
pubmed: 24091398
J Comput Biol. 2013 Oct;20(10):714-37
pubmed: 24093227
Nat Rev Genet. 2014 Feb;15(2):121-32
pubmed: 24434847
Genome Biol Evol. 2014 Oct 30;6(11):3077-93
pubmed: 25359922
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jul 1;32(Web Server issue):W309-12
pubmed: 15215400
J Evol Biol. 2015 Nov;28(11):1911-24
pubmed: 26265100
Nat Protoc. 2007;2(9):2233-44
pubmed: 17853881

Auteurs

Pepijn W Kooij (PW)

Department of Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom.
Center for the Study of Social Insects, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Jaume Pellicer (J)

Department of Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom.
Institut Botànic de Barcelona (IBB, CSIC-Ajuntament de Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell

Selecting optimal software code descriptors-The case of Java.

Yegor Bugayenko, Zamira Kholmatova, Artem Kruglov et al.
1.00
Software Algorithms Programming Languages
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice

Classifications MeSH