Supplemental Information for MMETSP article: 'Re-assembly, quality evaluation, and annotation of 678 microbial eukaryotic reference transcriptomes'

Supplemental Information for the MMETSP article, 'Re-assembly, quality evaluation, and annotation of 678 microbial eukaryotic reference transcriptomes' Supplemental Table 1: All evaluation metrics collected for Johnson et al. 2018 (.csv)Supplemental Table 2: Metadata for Supplemental Table 1 (.csv)Supplemental Notebook 1: comparison between NCBI SRA and iMicrobe sample information (.ipynb)Supplemental Notebook 2: Trinity version comparisons (.ipynb)Supplemental Figure 1: Transrate score comparisons between DIB re-assemblies and the two 'cds' and 'nt' versions of the NCGR assemblies (.pdf and .docx)Supplemental Figure 2: Frequency distribution of differences between Transrate scores between the NCGR ‘nt’ assemblies and the DIB re-assemblies grouped by the top seven most represented phyla in the MMETSP data set (.pdf and .docx)Supplemental Figure 3: The mean proportion of contigs with complete protistan universal single copy orthologs (BUSCO) recovered in each assembly (.pdf and .docx)Supplemental Figure 4: A subset of MMETSP samples. (.pdf and .docx and .ipynb) Other notebooks used to generate Figures for Johnson et al 2018: Johnson_etal_2018_GigaScience_Figures.ipynbFigures 4 and 7 - MMETSP_unique_kmers_dammitgenenames.ipynbFigure8_aov.ipynbMMETSP_transcriptome_assembly_stats.ipynbmake_large_assembly_evaluation_matrix.ipynb Files located on GitHub:https://github.com/ljcohen/MMETSP