Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of Meug genome assemblies

From: Genome sequence of an Australian kangaroo, Macropus eugenii, provides insight into the evolution of mammalian reproduction and development

 

Assembly version

 

1.0

1.1

2.0

Contigs (million)

1.211

1.174

1.111

   N50 (kb)

2.5

2.6

2.91

   Bases (Mb)

2546

2,536

2,574

Scaffolds

616,418

277,711

379,858

   Max scaffold size

NA

472,108

324,751

   Gaps (Mb)

NA

539

619

   N50 (kb)

NA

41.8

34.3

   Complex scaffolds

NA

128,563

124,674

   Singleton scaffolds

NA

149,148

255,184

Co-linear with BACs

NA

87.2% (418)

93.4% (298)

Co-linear with ESTs

NA

82.3% (704)

86.7% (454)

  1. Summary statistics for the tammar genome assemblies. These statistics indicate the extension and merging of contigs done to improve the assembly. The larger number of scaffolds and smaller scaffold N50 is a consequence of higher stringency in the 2.0 scaffolding workflow. The higher stringency isolated many contigs. However, the number of complex (that is, useful) scaffolds is similar between the assemblies. For co-linear estimates, the scaffolds were linearized and BACs and cDNA libraries were mapped against them. The 1.1 and 2.0 assemblies were validated against 169 BAC contigs and 84,718 ESTs (that were not incorporated into either genome assembly). We determined the percentage of contigs where the scaffolding matched the order and orientation when compared to BACs or ESTs (co-linear with BACs/ESTs). Parentheses indicate the total number of contigs identified after alignment to BAC contigs or ESTs.
Back to article page

Genome Biology

ISSN: 1474-760X

Contact us