Figures
Abstract
Next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have greatly changed the landscape of transcriptomic studies of non-model organisms. Since there is no reference genome available, de novo assembly methods play key roles in the analysis of these data sets. Because of the huge amount of data generated by NGS technologies for each run, many assemblers, e.g., ABySS, Velvet and Trinity, are developed based on a de Bruijn graph due to its time- and space-efficiency. However, most of these assemblers were developed initially for the Illumina/Solexa platform. The performance of these assemblers on 454 transcriptomic data is unknown. In this study, we evaluated and compared the relative performance of these de Bruijn graph based assemblers on both simulated and real 454 transcriptomic data. The results suggest that Trinity, the Illumina/Solexa-specialized transcriptomic assembler, performs the best among the multiple de Bruijn graph assemblers, comparable to or even outperforming the standard 454 assembler Newbler which is based on the overlap-layout-consensus algorithm. Our evaluation is expected to provide helpful guidance for researchers to choose assemblers when analyzing 454 transcriptomic data.
Citation: Ren X, Liu T, Dong J, Sun L, Yang J, Zhu Y, et al. (2012) Evaluating de Bruijn Graph Assemblers on 454 Transcriptomic Data. PLoS ONE 7(12): e51188. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188
Editor: Michael Watson, The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Received: June 26, 2012; Accepted: October 31, 2012; Published: December 7, 2012
Copyright: © 2012 Ren et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by the Eleven-Fifth Mega-Scientific Project on infectious diseases, China (grant nos. 2008ZX10401-3 and 2009ZX10004-303) and the National Nature Science Foundation of China (grant no. 30870104). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
RNA-Seq, the sequencing of cDNAs with next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, allows rapid and comprehensive characterization of transcriptomes [1]–[8]. Particularly, with the development of de novo assembly software, ab initio identification of full-length transcripts from RNA-Seq data has without a reference become possible [2], [9]. Thus, RNA-Seq with de novo assembly is very important both for genome annotation, if genome sequences are available, and for functional genomics studies of non-model organisms whose genomes have not yet been sequenced.
NGS technologies, such as the Roche 454, Illumina/Solexa, and ABI SOLiD platforms, produce millions of short sequence reads that vary in length from tens of base pairs (bps) to ∼1,000 bps. Even though read length increases with advances in NGS technologies, the de novo assembly of short reads to produce full-length transcripts remains a problem due to sequencing errors and the complexity of transcriptomes.
Recently, there have been various de novo assembly algorithms released, including algorithms for genome assembly, e.g., ABySS [10], ALL-PATHS [11], Euler-sr [12], SOAPdenovo [13], SGA [14], and Velvet [15], and algorithms for transcriptome assembly, e.g., MIRA [16], Trans-ABySS [17], [18], Oases [19], and Trinity [2]. Because of the huge amount of data generated by NGS technologies (especially the Illumina/Solexa platform) for each run, many assemblers, e.g. ABySS, ALL-PATHS, Euler-sr, SOAPdenovo, Velvet, Oases and Trinity, are developed based on de Bruijn graph due to its time- and space-efficiency. These tools provide efficient and effective methods to reconstruct full-length transcripts from RNA-Seq data.
However, most of these tools were initially designed and evaluated on the Illumina/Solexa platform that produces millions of short reads with the same length. Their performance on 454 transcriptomic data has not been addressed to our best knowledge. Roche 454 platform generates fewer but longer reads with various lengths than the Illumina/Solexa platform. And Newbler and MIRA are now still the gold standard assemblers for 454 data. What the 454 sequencing properties impact on these Illumina/Solexa-specialized assemblers and whether there is alternative de Bruijn graph based assembler to Newbler and MIRA is unknown.
Although a series of examinations regarding relative performance of various de novo assemblers have been published [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], these were all conducted for genome assembly and considered only one NGS platform. Zhao et al. evaluated various assemblers rigorously for transcriptome assembly [25], but they only conducted the comparison on the Illumina/Solexa platform. Mundry et al. evaluated multiple assemblers on 454 transcriptomic data by a simulation method [26], but only one de Bruijn graph based assembler (Oases) was included in the evaluation. A relatively more comprehensive assessment of de Bruijn graph based assemblers on 454 transcriptomic data is of a pressing need.
In this study, we critically evaluated several of the leading de Bruijn graph based assemblers on both simulated and real 454 datasets. We compared their performance to that of Newbler and MIRA in terms of various metrics, especially including sensitivity and specificity. We found that some de Bruijn graph based assemblers performed bad on 454 transcriptomic data but some assemblers, especially Trinity [2], performed even better than Newbler and MIRA, providing an alternative solution for researchers to analyze 454 transcriptomic data.
Results
Overview of Assemblers and Datasets
ABySS (version 1.3.4) [10], Euler-sr (version 1.1.2) [12], SOAPdenovo and SOAPdenovo-Trans (version 1.05) [13], Velvet (version 1.2.07) [15], Oases (version 0.2.08) [19], and Trinity (version r20120608) [2] were selected to assemble the sequence reads. All of these algorithms are based on the de Bruijn graph [27] but implement it differently. In a de Bruijn graph, a node is defined by a sequence with fixed length k (size of ‘k-mer,’ a predefined parameter in many assembly algorithms). An edge, eij, connects node i to node j if and only if the 3′ k−1 nucleotides of node i exactly match the 5′ k−1 nucleotides of node j and the connection is supported by the data. An assembly corresponds to a set of paths in the de Bruijn graph. Variations among different assembly algorithms rely on the error correction steps before and during the construction of the de Bruijn graph, the criteria used for path calling, and the post-processing steps. When assembling our data sets, we set k equal to 25 (Trinity only accepts k-mer size 25) for all assemblers for uniformity and optimized other parameters to achieve a good assembly (see Materials and Methods for details). Although k = 25 may be unfair for some assemblers and multiple k will greatly increase the identification chance of real transcripts, we used the same k for all the de Bruijn graph assemblers because the same k-mer distribution is important to evaluate how different implementations impact the assembly performances. We also evaluated the performance variation of the same assemblers under different k-mer sizes. We selected Newbler (version 2.6, with option ‘-cdna’) and MIRA (version 3.4) [16] as the gold standard assemblers [26].
We used ART (version 1.6.8) [28] to simulate the Roche 454 sequencing data sets based on the full set of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cDNA sequences downloaded from Biomart on Dec. 30, 2011 (http://www.biomart.org/biomart/martview/). ART provides a set of simulation tools to generate artificial sequence reads by mimicking the real sequencing process, supporting Roche 454, Illumina/Solexa and Applied Biosystems SPLiD platforms. It has been widely used in the 1000 genomes project (http://www.1000genomes.org/). The error models and read length distributions used in ART are summarized from large number of real data sets. Thus, ART is thought to provide realistic simulation of the true sequencing process. In total, 7,130 Saccharomyces cerevisiae cDNA sequences were used in the simulation, and the complexity of these sequences is demonstrated by the plot of length of k-mer against k-mer-uniqueness (Figure 1). Fixing the length of k-mer, if one cDNA sequence has no k-mer overlapping with other cDNAs in the data set, then this cDNA sequence is k-mer-unique. The k-mer-uniqueness of a data set is the proportion of k-mer-unique cDNAs in the entire set of cDNAs. In principle, k-mer-uniqueness increases as the length of k-mer increases, and the larger the k-mer-uniqueness is, the easier the de novo assembling task. Figure 1 shows that the k-mer-uniqueness of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cDNA sequences approaches 1 as the length of k-mer approaches 1000. When k = 25, the k-mer-uniqueness is ∼0.80, indicating that some cDNAs may not be easily resolved due to the shared k-mers. We simulated three 454 data sets, one with a constant 30-fold coverage for each cDNA and with read length between 37 bps and 385 bps (default read length distribution, totally 1,281,666 reads), the second with varying coverage from 0 to 30 (median: 14, inter-quantile range: 15) for each cDNA and with read length between 37 bps and 385 bps (default read length distribution, totally 605,732 reads), and the third with varying coverage from 0 to 30 (median:15, inter-quantile range: 15) for each cDNA and with read length between 87 bps and 435 bps (customized read length distribution, totally 643,462 reads). The first data set provides sufficient coverage for each cDNA so that the performance of assemblers is evaluated on a relatively easily-solved data set. The second data set provides varying coverage for cDNAs with short read length while the third data set with long read length. Thus, the performance of assemblers on realistic conditions and the impact of read length on assemblers are examined. Here, the varying cDNA coverage summarized the copy numbers of a certain cDNA and the sequencing depth (see Materials and Methods for details).
Fixing the length of k-mer, if one cDNA sequence has no k-mer overlapping with other cDNAs in the data set, then this cDNA sequence is k-mer-unique. The k-mer-uniqueness of a data set is the proportion of k-mer-unique cDNAs in the entire set of cDNAs. In principle, k-mer-uniqueness increases as the length of k-mer increases, and the larger the k-mer-uniqueness is, the easier the de novo assembling task.
We also completed the evaluation on a real 454 transcriptomic dataset. We sequenced the transcriptome of Trichophyton rubrum by 454 and got 317,624 reads. Trichophyton rubrum is a fungus that causes human skin infections worldwide [29], [30], [31], of which the genome has not been completely revealed (Dermatophyte Comparative Sequencing Project, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, http://www.broadinstitute.org/) and the transcriptomic catalogue has not been finished. Such a dataset is a practical example showing the relative performance of de Bruijn graph assemblers for transcript reconstruction based on 454 reads without reference genome.
Evaluation on 30-fold Coverage Simulation Dataset
First, we evaluated the assemblers on the 30-fold coverage simulation dataset. One difficulty of transcriptome assembly is the heterogeneous coverage level compared to genome assembly. We simulated a homogeneous 30-fold coverage dataset to provide a relatively sufficient depth so that genome assemblers assuming homogeneous coverage distribution can also be evaluated justly. The useless reads that have repeated k-mer in sequence and are isolated in the de Bruijn graph of this data set is plotted in Figure 2. It can be seen that when the k-mer size is greater than 60, the proportion of unusable reads increases rapidly.
Data set 1 was of constant 30-fold coverage. Data set 2 and 3 were of varying coverage. Data set 1 and 2 were generated with the default read length distribution of ART whereas data set 3 was generated with a customized longer read length distribution. If there are repeated k-mers in sequence or all the k-mers are isolated in the de Bruijn graph, then this read is defined as “useless” here.
Standard metrics describing the assembly, e.g. the number of contigs, the longest contig, N50 and N90, were summarized in Table 1. The N50 or N90 value is defined in this manuscript as the contig length L for which half or 90% of the bases in the assembly are in sequences of length N> = L. Although they may be not applicable to transcriptome assembly, we used them to summarize basic characteristics of assemblies. From Table 1, we found that transcriptome assemblers, i.e., Oases, Trinity, Newbler (version 2.6, for transcriptome) and MIRA, generated relatively longer contigs than genome assemblers (ABySS, Euler-sr, SOAPdenovo and Velvet). SOAPdenovo-Trans generated the median-length contigs. The longest contigs of Oases, Trinity, SOAPdenovo-Trans, Newbler and MIRA assemblies were all of more than 11 k bps whereas the longest contigs of ABySS, SOAPdenovo and Velvet were all of fewer than 10 k bps. The N50 values of Oases, Trinity, Newbler and MIRA assemblies were all bigger than 1.7 k while the N50 values of ABySS, SOAPdenovo and Velvet were all smaller than 1.2 k. Euler-sr is an exception of the genome assemblers. It generated contigs whose length distribution was similar to those of transcriptome assemblers.
Besides these basic metrics, we also evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of these assemblies, which reflect the quality of an assembly. We aligned the assembled contigs to the true transcripts by BLAST (version 2.2.22, with parameters ‘-e 1e-5–F F’) [32] and calculated the sensitivity and specificity indices of each assembly. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of true transcripts that were reconstructed by an assembly and specificity was defined as the proportion of assembled contigs that can be aligned the true transcripts [26]. If an assembly has both high sensitivity and high specificity, then it is a comprehensive and reliable assembly. The sensitivity and specificity of these assemblers on the 30-fold coverage simulation datasets were summarized in Table 2. It can be found that transcriptome assemblers (Oases, Trinity, Newbler and MIRA, except SOAPdenovo-Trans) outperformed genome assemblers (ABySS, Euler-sr, SOAPdenovo and Velvet). MIRA performed best, with both the highest sensitivity and specificity. Although Oases and Trinity were initially designed for Illumina/Solexa reads, they had comparable performance to Newbler. Especially, Trinity outperformed Newbler for reconstruct 95%-full-length transcripts, with 0.738 sensitivity while Newbler only had 0.560 sensitivity. Trinity also generated the second most reliable contigs, with 0.682 specificity while Newbler only 0.640. Relaxing the contig sequence coverage and the transcript sequence coverage in the alignment (from 95% to 90%, 85% and 80%), Newbler got higher specificity than Trinity but Trinity still had higher sensitivity than Newbler.
Evaluation on Varying Coverage Simulation Dataset
The homogenous coverage simulation dataset provided a baseline comparison of the performance of multiple de Bruijn graph assemblers and the overlap-layout-consensus assemblers Newbler and MIRA. We further generated two datasets with heterogenous coverage to simulate the real transcriptome, one with short read length and the other with long read length. The basic characteristics of the multiple assemblies on the data set with short read length were summarized in Table 3. As the situation of the homogeneous coverage dataset, transcriptome assemblers (Oases, Trinity, Newbler and MIRA, except SOAPdenovo-Trans) generated longer contigs than genome assemblers (ABySS, Euler-sr, SOAPdenovo and Velvet). The longest contigs generated by Oases, Trinity and Newbler all had more than 9 k bps while the longest contigs generated by ABySS, SOAPdenovo and Velvet had fewer than 7 k bps wit Euler-sr an exception. Trinity and MIRA generated the longest contigs with 12251 and 12255 bps, respectively. The N50 values of transcriptome assemblers were also larger than those of genome assemblers. Oases had the largest N50 whereas SOAPdenovo had the smallest.
Regarding sensitivity and specificity, MIRA and Trinity outperformed the other assemblers again (Table 4). When the alignment criteria were set to 95% coverage for both query contigs and subject oracle transcripts, MIRA had 0.544 sensitivity and 0.424 specificity. Trinity had 0.440 sensitivity and 0.360 specificity while Newbler had 0.300 sensitivity and 0.260 specificity. The fourth top assembler is Oases, with 0.301 sensitivity and 0.300 specificity. Euler-sr performed best among those genome assemblers.
We also evaluated the performance of these assemblers on data set 3 in which the read length was longer than that in data set 2. Because Trinity and Oases are Illumina/Solexa-specific transcriptomic assemblers, they may benefit from short read length compared to Newbler and MIRA. Evaluation on longer read length can examine the impact of read length on the performance of these assemblers. The basic characteristics of the assemblies on data set 3 were summarized in Table 5. Trinity generated the longest contig (14654 bps) while Newbler generated the second longest contig (14586 bps). Oases and MIRA generated the third and fourth longest contigs (12242 and 12240 bps, respectively). Oases had the longest N50 and N90 values. The sensitivity and specificity of these assemblies were summarized in Table 6. MIRA still performed best with regards to both sensitivity and specificity. Trinity was the second best assembler and Newbler was the third best. Oases performed the fourth. These results suggest that Trinity is comparable to Newbler and MIRA not only on data set with short reads but also on data set with long reads.
We also checked different k-mer sizes for the same assemblers on data set 3 to show the impact of k-mer size on assemblies. For ABySS, we tested k-mer sizes 25–31. The sensitivity and specificity increased slightly (sensitivity from 0.020 to 0.023, specificity from 0.006 to 0.008, 95% sequence coverage), suggesting that the performance differences between assemblers are not due to k-mer bias. For Euler-sr, we tested 25–27 (the larger k-mer is, the more time the computation needs). The sensitivity increased from 0.218 (k-mer: 25) to 0.229 (k-mer: 26) and then decreased to 0.210 (k-mer: 27). The variation was still much smaller than the differences between assemblers. The small variation of the same assembler under different k-mer sizes was also supported by SOAPdenovo, SOAPdenovo-Trans, Velvet and Oases. Because Trinity only accepts k-mer size 25, the effect of different k-mer sizes was not evaluated on it. Results on data set 1 and 2 also supported small variation between different k-mer sizes of the same assemblers.
The simulated data sets also allowed us to check the chimeric contigs in these assemblies. By aligning the contigs to the true transcripts and counting how many true transcripts were aligned to one contig (E-value <1e-5, contig coverage >10%), we found that Newbler reported the fewest chimeric contigs on both data set 2 (557 chimeric contigs out of 6936 total) and 3 (583 chimeric contigs out of 6968 total). The second assembler with fewest chimeric contigs was Oases (568 chimeric contigs out of 6808 total on data set 2 and 604 chimeric contigs out of 6815 total on data set 3). The ratios for all assemblers are about 8% (Table 7).
Evaluation on Real Trichophyton rubrum Dataset
We further examined the performance of the assemblers on a real non-model organism dataset to evaluate the practical power of the assemblers. We sequenced the transcriptome of Trichophyton rubrum by 454 and obtained 317,624 reads with various lengths (from 40 bps to 1185 bps). Then, the assemblers were applied to this dataset to reconstruct transcripts of Trichophyton rubrum. The basic metrics of the assemblies were summarized in Table 8. Oases, Trinity and Newbler generated longer contigs than genome assemblers ABySS, Euler-sr, SOAPdenovo and Velvet. Newbler generated the longest contig (22,223 bps). Trinity generated the second longest contig (17023 bps).
Because of the absence of the true transcripts of Trichophyton rubrum, unlike the situations in simulation, a difficulty occurred in evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of assemblers. Thus, we used the NCBI non-redundant protein database (NR) as reference to examine how many of the assembled contigs encode open reading frames (ORFs) that can be aligned to known proteins. The assumption of this evaluation is the conservation of proteins among organisms. We found that Trinity and Oases can assemble more contigs encoding ORFs that can be aligned to known proteins in NR. Setting the query coverage and subject coverage in the alignment both more than 95%, Trinity had 1,466 (11%) contigs encoding ORFs aligned to proteins in NR. 847 out of the 1,466 contigs encode ORFs that can be aligned globally to the full-length proteins in NR. Oases had 1439 (9%) contigs encoding ORFs aligned to proteins in NR. 920 out of 1439 aligned globally. MIRA had 835 (4%) contigs encoding ORFs aligned to proteins in NR. 494 out of 835 aligned globally. Newbler had 763 (6%) contigs encoding ORFs aligned to protein in NR with 95% as the alignment criteria. 624 encode ORFs that can be aligned globally to the full-length proteins in NR. If the alignment criteria were set to 90% for both query coverage and subject coverage, then Trinity and Oases had 2055 (15%) and 1884 (12%) aligned contigs whereas MIRA and Newbler had 1307 (7%) and 919 (7%) aligned contigs, further suggesting the excellent performance of Trinity.
Discussion
The NGS technologies have greatly changed the landscape of transcriptome research of non-model organisms. Without reference genome, the NGS technologies can generate many but short sequence reads of the transcriptome of non-model organisms. With the de novo assemblers, these short reads can be assembled into longer contigs which approximates transcripts or something similar. However, the de novo assembly of short reads to long transcripts is a challenging task due to short repeated sequences, sequencing errors, and other reasons. Now there have been many de novo assemblers released to facilitate researchers’ usage. Among the numerous assemblers, de Bruijn graph based assemblers and overlap-layout-consensus based assemblers dominate the market. Because of the huge size of the NGS output and the time- and space-efficacy of de Bruijn graph based assemblers, de Bruijn graph based assemblers get more and more popular. However, most of the current de Bruijn graph based assemblers were initially designed and tested on the Illumina/Solexa platform. There are fewer de Bruijn graph based assemblers for Roche 454 platform. The gold standard assemblers on 454 are Newbler and MIRA, two overlap-layout-consensus based assemblers. It is still unclear whether the Illumina/Solexa-specialized de Bruijn graph assemblers are applicable on the 454 platform and whether there is alternative to or better assemblers than Newbler and MIRA for 454 transcriptomic analysis. In this study, we conducted such an evaluation and found that those Illumina/Solexa-specialized de Bruijn graph assemblers performed well on 454 transcriptomic data. Especially, the transcriptome-specialized assembler, Trinity, is comparable to or even better than the gold standard 454 assemblers, Newbler and MIRA. Our results on both simulated and real datasets suggested that Trinity had both high sensitivity and high specificity, providing a good choice for researchers analyzing 454 transcriptome data.
In our evaluation, all assemblers except Newbler and MIRA are based on de Bruijn graphs. Setting the same k-mer length, we rigorously compared the performance of these assemblers. The results suggested big performance variations, suggesting the big impact of the implementation details of the same algorithm on the transcript reconstruction. First, Oases and Velvet provide an example that different assembly assumptions greatly influence the performance. With the same input and k-mer, Oases wrapped the output of Velvet but significantly outperformed Velvet in reconstructing transcripts. Velvet was initially designed for genome assembly, so some assumptions based on genome sequences were made and encoded in the implementations. Oases was designed for transcriptome assembly and thus broke the genome assumption and got better performance. Second, Euler-sr provides an excellent example that different implementations can also result in significant performance variations even though it had the same input, the same data structure, the same k and the same design aim (genome assembly) as ABySS, SOAPdenovo and Velvet. Among the four genome assembly tools, only Euler-sr had comparable performance to those transcriptome-aimed assemblers. Third, the disparity between Oases and Trinity suggested that implementation differences within transcriptome assembly aimed tools can also result in big performance differences.
Many studies have suggested that multiple k strategy, i.e. constructing different assemblies with multiple k and then merging the multiple assemblies by clustering methods, can greatly improve the sensitivity of the final merged assembly [17], [19], [25]. This strategy is very useful in practical application to reconstruct as many transcripts as possible. But the cost of sensitivity improvement is the decrease of specificity because many redundant/overlapped contigs were generated. Although clustering methods can reduce certain redundancy, multiple k strategy generally generates much more contigs than real transcripts [17], [19], [25]. Moreover, the 5′ and 3′ boundary problem of the reconstructed transcripts cannot be solved by clustering methods, resulting in many partially reconstructed transcripts. A promising method to utilize multiple k-mer distribution information underlying the input data maybe lies in the assembly construction process, just like what IDBA does [33], [34], [35]. Evaluation of multiple k strategy on 454 transcriptomic data is out of the scope of our current study and will be finished in future.
The size and complexity of an organism’s transcriptome may also an important factor influencing the performance of various assemblers. In our evaluations, MIRA performed best on all the data sets of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. But on the data set of Trichophyton rubrum, a much bigger and more complex fungus, MIRA reported fewer contigs that can align to the NCBI NR database than Trinity and Oases. This may be because of the high efficacy of de Bruijn graph assemblers to handle large data set. A rigorous evaluation of the impact of the transcriptome complexity on performance of assemblers is expected in future.
Conclusions
The overlap-layout-consensus based assemblers, Newbler and MIRA, are still the gold-standard assemblers for 454 transcriptomic data now. We evaluated a series of initially Illumina/Solex-oriented de Bruijn graph based assemblers on both simulated and real 454 transcriptomic datasets, and found that 1) MIRA performed best with regarding both sensitivity and specificity; 2) Trinity is comparable to or even outperformed Newbler, providing an alternative solution for reconstructing full-length transcripts from 454 reads; and 3) all assemblers generate about 8% chimeric contigs, reminding scientists carefully interpreting the results.
Materials and Methods
Ethics Statement
Trichophyton rubrum (strain BMU01672) used in this study was isolated from nail scraps of a patient suffering from tinea unguium. The participant provided his written informed consent and the procedure was approved by the ethics committee of Institute of Pathogen Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College.
Simulation of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Dataset
The full-length sequences of 7,130 Saccharomyces cerevisiae cDNAs were downloaded from Biomart on Dec. 30, 2011 (http://www.biomart.org/biomart/martview/), and ART (version 1.6.8) [28] was utilized to simulate Roche 454 and Illumina/Solexa reads with 30-fold homogeneous coverage and heterogeneous coverage between 0 and 30. Given a Saccharomyces cerevisiae cDNA sequence, a coverage value between 0 and 30 was randomly assigned and then ART was applied to simulate the 454 reads with the coverage. The product of the copy number of a transcript and the sequencing depth forms the coverage of the transcript. Varying coverage simulated the copy number of transcripts if the sequencing depth is a constant. The default read length distribution of Roche 454 reads was based on the distribution of a large number of real data sets summarized by ART. The customized long read length distribution was based on the default read length distribution except that each read length number was added 50 bps additionally. The sequencing error profiles for Roche 454 were based on those provided by ART. The simulated data sets were direct inputs of the assemblers, without any preprocessing step, e.g. error correction.
Generation of Real Trichophyton Rubrum Transcriptome Dataset
The Trichophyton rubrum isolate was maintained on potato glucose agar (Difco) at 28°C for 2 weeks to produce conidia. Conidia were washed away from the surface of the agar by sterile double-distilled water and filtered twice through a 70-µm nylon filter. The conidia suspension was then transferred into Sabouraud liquid medium (containing 49 g glucose and 10 g Difco Bacto peptone in 1 L distilled water) and cultured with constant shaking (200 rpm, Innova 4230 Refrigerated Incubator Shaker, New Brunswick Scientific) at 28°C for 1 week. Hyphae of Trichophyton rubrum collected from the Sabouraud liquid medium was ground into powder with a mortar and pestle in liquid nitrogen to facilitate cell disruption. Total RNA was isolated using the QIAGEN RNeasy® Plant Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Inc., Valencia, CA) and Poly(A)+ mRNA was purified with the Oligotex mRNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Single- and double-strand synthesis was conducted using the Superscript Double-Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Invitrogen). The quality of cDNA was checked on 1.5% agarose gels and an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer. Preparation of transcription libraries for sequencing on 454 and the Illumina GA2 platforms was carried out according to the manufacturer’s standard protocol. Briefly, for 454 sequencing, an approximately 5-µg cDNA sample was fractionated into 300–500-bps fragments and subsequently blunted. Short adaptors were then ligated prior to amplification and sequencing. Finally, one sequencing run was performed using the method described by Margulies et al. [36]. The raw data were deposited to the NCBI Sequence Reads Archive (SRA) with accession number SRA050365.1. The real data set was direct inputs of the assemblers, without any preprocessing step, e.g. error correction.
Parameter Settings of the Assemblers
ABySS (version 1.3.4) [10], Euler-sr (version 1.1.2) [12], SOAPdenovo and SOAPdenovo-Trans (version 1.05) [13], Velvet (version 1.2.07) [15], Oases (version 0.2.08) [19], Trinity (version r20120608) [2], Newbler (version 2.6) and MIRA (version 3.4) were included in this evaluation. For ABySS, Euler-sr, SOAPdenvo, SOAPdenovo-Trans and Oases, except the k-mer size, the other applied parameters were the default values. For Velvet, the ‘-cov_cutoff’ was set to 4. For Trinity, the minimal contig length was set to 25 to include as many contigs as possible. For Newbler, ‘-cdna’ was used. For MIRA, ‘–job = denovo, est, accurate, 454 -fasta -MI:sonfs = no –notraceinfo’ were used to accomplish the assemblies.
For the simulated data sets, the contigs were aligned to the true transcripts downloaded from Biomart (http://www.biomart.org/biomart/martview/) on on Dec. 30, 2011 by the NCBI BLAST software (version 2.2.22) with parameters ‘-p blastn –e 1e–5–F F’. For the real data set, the ORFs encoded in the contigs were first identified by the getorf software in the EMBOSS software package () and then were aligned to the NCBI NR database by the NCBI BLAST software (version 2.2.22) with parameters ‘-p blastp –e 1e-5–F F’.
Supporting Information
Figure S1.
Trichophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.trinity20120608.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by Trinity20120608 based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s001
(FASTA)
Figure S2.
Trichophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.abyss1.3.4.k25.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by ABySS (v1.3.4) based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s002
(FASTA)
Figure S3.
Trichophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.euler-sr.1.1.2.k25.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by Euler-sr (v1.1.2) based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s003
(FASTA)
Figure S4.
Trichophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.mira3.4.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by MIRA (v3.4) based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s004
(FASTA)
Figure S5.
Trichophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.oases0.2.k25.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by Oases (v0.2.0.8) based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s005
(FASTA)
Figure S6.
Trichophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.soapdenovo1.05.k25.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by SOAPdenovo (v1.05) based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s006
(FASTA)
Figure S7.
Trichophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.velvet1.2.07.k25.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by Velvet (v1.2.07) based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s007
(FASTA)
Figure S8.
Tricophyton_rubrum.mRNA.454.newbler2.6.contigs.fasta Contigs assembled by Newbler (v2.6) based on the 454 reads of Trichophyton rubrum transcriptome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051188.s008
(FASTA)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: QJ XR. Performed the experiments: XR TL JD LS JY YZ. Analyzed the data: XR TL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: QJ. Wrote the paper: XR TL QJ.
References
- 1. Gonzalez-Ballester D, Casero D, Cokus S, Pellegrini M, Merchant SS, et al. (2010) RNA-Seq Analysis of Sulfur-Deprived Chlamydomonas Cells Reveals Aspects of Acclimation Critical for Cell Survival. PLANT CELL 22: 2058–2084.
- 2. Grabherr MG, Haas BJ, Yassour M, Levin JZ, Thompson DA, et al. (2011) Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotech 29: 644–652.
- 3. Islam S, Kjallquist U, Moliner A, Zajac P, Fan J-B, et al. (2011) Characterization of the single-cell transcriptional landscape by highly multiplex RNA-seq. Genome Research 21: 1160–1167.
- 4. Lu T, Lu G, Fan D, Zhu C, Li W, et al. (2010) Function annotation of the rice transcriptome at single-nucleotide resolution by RNA-seq. Genome Research 20: 1238–1249.
- 5. Mortazavi A, Schwarz EM, Williams B, Schaeffer L, Antoshechkin I, et al. (2010) Scaffolding a Caenorhabditis nematode genome with RNA-seq. Genome Research 20: 1740–1747.
- 6. Rowley JW, Oler AJ, Tolley ND, Hunter BN, Low EN, et al. (2011) Genome-wide RNA-seq analysis of human and mouse platelet transcriptomes. Blood 118: e101–111.
- 7. Trapnell C, Williams BA, Pertea G, Mortazavi A, Kwan G, et al. (2010) Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnology 28: 511–515.
- 8. Wilhelm BT, Briau M, Austin P, Faubert A, Boucher G, et al. (2011) RNA-seq analysis of 2 closely related leukemia clones that differ in their self-renewal capacity. Blood 117: e27–38.
- 9. Iyer MK, Chinnaiyan AM (2011) RNA-Seq unleashed. Nat Biotech 29: 599–600.
- 10. Simpson JT, Wong K, Jackman SD, Schein JE, Jones SJM, et al. (2009) ABySS: A parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Research 19: 1117–1123.
- 11. Butler J, MacCallum I, Kleber M, Shlyakhter IA, Belmonte MK, et al. (2008) ALLPATHS: de novo assembly of whole-genome shotgun microreads. Genome Research 18: 810–820.
- 12. Pevzner PA, Tang H, Waterman MS (2001) An Eulerian path approach to DNA fragment assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 9748–9753.
- 13. Li R, Yu C, Li Y, Lam T-W, Yiu S-M, et al. (2009) SOAP2: an improved ultrafast tool for short read alignment. Bioinformatics 25: 1966–1967.
- 14. Simpson JT, Durbin R (2011) Efficient de novo assembly of large genomes using compressed data structures. Genome Research 22: 549–556.
- 15. Zerbino DR, Birney E (2008) Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Research 18: 821–829.
- 16. Chevreux B, Pfisterer T, Drescher B, Driesel AJ, Müller WEG, et al. (2004) Using the miraEST Assembler for Reliable and Automated mRNA Transcript Assembly and SNP Detection in Sequenced ESTs. Genome Research 14: 1147–1159.
- 17. Birol I, Jackman SD, Nielsen CB, Qian JQ, Varhol R, et al. (2009) De novo transcriptome assembly with ABySS. Bioinformatics 25: 2872–2877.
- 18. Robertson G, Schein J, Chiu R, Corbett R, Field M, et al. (2010) De novo assembly and analysis of RNA-seq data. Nature Methods 7: 909–912.
- 19. Schulz MH, Zerbino DR, Vingron M, Birney E (2012) Oases: Robust de novo RNA-seq assembly across the dynamic range of expression levels. Bioinformatics 28 (8): 1086–1092.
- 20. Lin Y, Li J, Shen H, Zhang L, Papasian CJ, et al. (2011) Comparative Studies of de novo Assembly Tools for Next-generation Sequencing Technologies. Bioinformatics 27 (15): 2031–2037.
- 21. Vezzi F, Narzisi G, Mishra B (2012) Feature-by-Feature – Evaluating De Novo Sequence Assembly. PLoS ONE 7: e31002–e31002.
- 22. Zhang W, Chen J, Yang Y, Tang Y, Shang J, et al. (2011) A Practical Comparison of De Novo Genome Assembly Software Tools for Next-Generation Sequencing Technologies. PLoS ONE 6: e17915–e17915.
- 23. Earl DA, Bradnam K, St. John J, Darling A, Lin D, et al. (2011) Assemblathon 1: A competitive assessment of de novo short read assembly methods. Genome Research 21: 2224–2241.
- 24. Salzberg SL, Phillippy AM, Zimin A, Puiu D, Magoc T, et al. (2011) GAGE: A critical evaluation of genome assemblies and assembly algorithms. Genome Research 22: 557–67.
- 25. Zhao Q-Y, Wang Y, Kong Y-M, Luo D, Li X, et al. (2011) Optimizing de novo transcriptome assembly from short-read RNA-Seq data: a comparative study. BMC Bioinformatics 12: S2–S2.
- 26. Mundry M, Bornberg-Bauer E, Sammeth M, Feulner PGD (2012) Evaluating Characteristics of De Novo Assembly Software on 454 Transcriptome Data: A Simulation Approach. PLoS ONE 7: e31410.
- 27. De Bruijn NG (1946) A combinatorical problem. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie v Wetenschappen 46: 7.
- 28. Huang W, Li L, Myers JR, Marth GT (2012) ART: a next-generation sequencing read simulator. Bioinformatics 28: 593–594.
- 29. Costa M, Passos XS, Hasimoto e Souza LK, Miranda ATB, Lemos JdA, et al. (2002) Epidemiology and etiology of dermatophytosis in Goiânia, GO, Brazil. Revista Da Sociedade Brasileira De Medicina Tropical 35: 19–22.
- 30. Jennings MB, Weinberg JM, Koestenblatt EK, Lesczczynski C (2002) Study of clinically suspected onychomycosis in a podiatric population. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 92: 327–330.
- 31. Monod M, Jaccoud S, Zaugg C, Léchenne B, Baudraz F, et al. (2002) Survey of dermatophyte infections in the Lausanne area Switzerland. Dermatology 205: 201–203.
- 32. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, et al. (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Research 25: 3389–3402.
- 33.
Peng Y, Leung H, Yiu S, Chin F (2011) T-IDBA: A de novo Iterative de Bruijn Graph Assembler for Transcriptome. In: Bafna V, Sahinalp S, editors. Research in Computational Molecular Biology: Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. 337–338.
- 34. Peng Y, Leung HCM, Yiu SM, Chin FYL (2011) Meta-IDBA: A De Novo Assembler for Metagenomic Data. Bioinformatics 27: i94–i101.
- 35. Peng Y, Leung HCM, Yiu SM, Chin FYL (2012) IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics 28: 1420–1428.
- 36. Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, Attiya S, Bader JS, et al. (2005) Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature 437: 376–380.