Review for "Re-assembly, quality evaluation, and annotation of 678 microbial eukaryotic reference transcriptomes"

Completed on 25 May 2018 by Matthew Macmanes.

Login to endorse this review.


Comments to author

The manuscript submitted by Lisa Johnson and colleagues is a well written and comprehensive work aimed at reanalyzing a fairly enormous dataset. I feel that the work is important for the following two main reasons:

1. Assembly methods have improved substantially since the original datasets were analyzed, and as the authors point out - these new analyses recover new transcripts that might be useful to the original researchers and to the broader community.

2. Applying standardized and reproducible methods - at scale - is challenging, and the authors provide an example for how this could be done. I can imagine others using these ideas (or the actual code) to assemble other datasets in a similar fashion.

In terms of the manuscript itself, it is sound, with just a few areas where improvements will make for a more readable paper. Interspersed with this, I have a few more pedantic suggestions that the author should feel free to ignore if deemed unhelpful.

Line 91: replace 'higher' with 'more favorable' or even 'better'

L102: The link to the code does not seem to be active. I would have loved to review it.

L111: You are using 50bp reads. Do you think your conclusions would have been any different had longer reads (100-150bp) been available? More novice readers might wonder if these methods are just as applicable to them with longer reads as they are to you. I'm sure the answer is yes - your new assemblies might have been even better had you had longer reads.

L180-182: If I didn't know khmer already, I might struggle with the HyperLogLog estimator. Maybe just a sentence or 3 more might be useful to explain what this is and why it is used.

L245ish: I keep wondering about your BUSCO scores, and the fact tat they are lower on average in your new assemblies compared to the older ones. Why is this? How do you reconcile this with the more general statement you are trying to make about 'more genes being recovered' in the new assembly. I see that BUSCO is just one of the available metrics to assess this, but it's a little strange I think, given that I'm convinced that these assemblies are actually better.

Could you (did you) do a CRHB against Swiss-prot? I imagine that for each assembly pair (old assembly vs new assembly), you'd see more hits to unique Swiss-Prot genes in the newer assembly.

L254: "less significantly different" Do you mean "significantly less"?

L306: I'm also confused about the TransRate scores. As best as I can tell the "NT" assemblies were the raw assemblies, while the "CDS" assemblies were further filtered. If my understanding is correct, then the opening statement for this paragraph (DIB assemblies were more inclusive) is incorrect, given that transrate metrics were higher for the NCGR nt assemblies that they were for the DIB assemblies. I'm also worried about the statements about DIB assemblies being better, while transrate scores were on whole, worse. Should reconcile this.

L315: I'm not sure that you are "directly" evaluating the de Bruijn structure.

L320: I'm not sure you show "Biologically meaningful". You show that you have recovered new stuff that is likely real (not an artifact of asembly), but not sure you can claim it's meaningful.

L364: In your discussion of kmer content (and other metrics) the idea that some of these datasets might in fact be meta-transcriptomes should be discussed. Lots of marine microeukaryotes associate with bacteria, viruses, etc, and unless extreme care was takes with the target species, to grow in sterile conditions, some of patterns of kmer distrib. might be because the datasets contain more than 1 species.

Table 1. Can you include the BUSCO results here?

Fig3 needs a y-axis label

Fig 5c and a few other places. There are a few DIB assemblies that are WAY worse than the original assembly. Why? This could benefit from some explanation.

In the end, what I took away from this paper is that the new assemblies had different transcripts, and this is great and potentially helpful for researchers. Saying that, on a whole, both BUSCO and TransRate scores trended toward lower, which is maybe surprising, especially because the original assemblies were assembled (best as I can tell) using a general genome assembler (ABySS/MIRA) rather than software specialized for transcriptomes.