Exact(2)
To gain more insight into the genome-wide distribution of NATs, we took advantage of the unprecedented depth of our dataset (~600 million mapped reads, Figure 2) and combined the mapping results of 11 libraries to generate a coverage map.
Read pileups were generated for each library and all read pileups (n = 11) were pooled using custom scripts to generate a coverage map for defining the genomic distribution of NATs.
Similar(58)
All unfixed control samples generated a coverage of 97%, the theoretical maximum by design.
Isolate O/UKG/1450/2001, which exhibited the highest viral load and total numbers of reads, generated a coverage depth >22 across 99.72% of the genome.
This generates a coverage spectrum (or bin spectrum) that embodies the observed number of bins containing various numbers of reads in the sample.
Of the 75 samples with less than optimal DNA input, 32 samples still generated the maximum possible coverage of approximately 97%, and a further 20 samples generated a coverage of >95% at a minimum read depth of 100x.
A current (circa 1999) forest inventory for the area was compiled, then overlaid with digitized historic disturbance maps, a 1919 timber cruise map, and a series of historic orthophotographs to generate a GIS coverage of forest cover polygons with unique disturbance histories dating back to 1920.
To generate a low-coverage reference sequence for the A. agrestis Bonn strain, DNA was extracted from one month old thalli using the protocol detailed above.
Two sequencing runs were performed: A 2X100 paired-end library was used to generate a high-coverage library using the HiSeq 2000 platform, while a 2X300 paired-end library was used for the MiSeq platform (Additional file 1: Table S1).
20× PS reads were randomly selected and assembled to generate an equal coverage of 454 dataset.
High-throughput Illumina sequencing was used to generate a 1x genomic coverage of an engineered CHO cell line expressing secreted alkaline phosphatase (SEAP).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com