Eukaryotic genome size databases.

Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Nucleic Acids Research (Impact Factor: 8.81). 02/2007; 35(Database issue):D332-8. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkl828
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Three independent databases of eukaryotic genome size information have been launched or re-released in updated form since 2005: the Plant DNA C-values Database (, the Animal Genome Size Database ( and the Fungal Genome Size Database ( In total, these databases provide freely accessible genome size data for >10,000 species of eukaryotes assembled from more than 50 years' worth of literature. Such data are of significant importance to the genomics and broader scientific community as fundamental features of genome structure, for genomics-based comparative biodiversity studies, and as direct estimators of the cost of complete sequencing programs.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently, large bio-projects dealing with the release of different genomes have transpired. Most of these projects use next-generation sequencing platforms. As a consequence, many de novo assembly tools have evolved to assemble the reads generated by these platforms. Each tool has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages, which make the selection of an appropriate tool a challenging task. We have evaluated the performance of frequently used de novo assemblers namely ABySS, IDBA-UD, Minia, SOAP, SPAdes, Sparse, and Velvet. These assemblers are assessed based on their output quality during the assembly process conducted over fungal data. We compared the performance of these assemblers by considering both computational as well as quality metrics. By analyzing these performance metrics, the assemblers are ranked and a procedure for choosing the candidate assembler is illustrated. In this study, we propose an assessment method for the selection of de novo assemblers by considering their computational as well as quality metrics at the draft genome level. We divide the quality metrics into three groups: g1 measures the goodness of the assemblies, g2 measures the problems of the assemblies, and g3 measures the conservation elements in the assemblies. Our results demonstrate that the assemblers ABySS and IDBA-UD exhibit a good performance for the studied data from fungal genomes in terms of running time, memory, and quality. The results suggest that whole genome shotgun sequencing projects should make use of different assemblers by considering their merits.
    BMC Genomics 12/2014; 15(Suppl 9):S10. · 4.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the number of protein-coding genes is not highly variable between plant taxa, the DNA content in their genomes is highly variable, by as much as 2,056-fold from a 1C amount of 0.0648 pg to 132.5 pg. The mean 1C-value in plants is 2.4 pg, and genome size expansion/contraction is lineage-specific in plant taxonomy. Transposable element fractions in plant genomes are also variable, as low as ~3% in small genomes and as high as ~85% in large genomes, indicating that genome size is a linear function of transposable element content. Of the 2 classes of transposable elements, the dynamics of class 1 long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons is a major contributor to the 1C value differences among plants. The activity of LTR retrotransposons is under the control of epigenetic suppressing mechanisms. Also, genome-purging mechanisms have been adopted to counter-balance the genome size amplification. With a wealth of information on whole-genome sequences in plant genomes, it was revealed that several genome-purging mechanisms have been employed, depending on plant taxa. Two genera, Lilium and Fritillaria, are known to have large genomes in angiosperms. There were twice times of concerted genome size evolutions in the family Liliaceae during the divergence of the current genera in Liliaceae. In addition to the LTR retrotransposons, non-LTR retrotransposons and satellite DNAs contributed to the huge genomes in the two genera by possible failure of genome counter-balancing mechanisms.
    Genomics & informatics. 09/2014; 12(3):87-97.
  • Source
    Current Opinion in Insect Science. 02/2015; 35.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014