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.