Search

Submitting sequences to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) is an integral part of research and the publication process for many disciplines within the life sciences, and it will only become more important as sequencing technologies continue to improve. Here, I argue that the available infrastructure and resources for uploading data to NCBI—especially the associated annotations of eukaryotic genomes—are inefficient, hard to use and sometimes just plain bad. This, in turn, is causing some researchers to forgo annotations entirely in their submissions. The time is overdue for the development of sophisticated, user-friendly software for depositing annotated sequences in GenBank.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized genomics and altered the scientific publication landscape. Life-science journals abound with genome papers—peer-reviewed descriptions of newly sequenced chromosomes. Although they once filled the pages of Nature and Science, genome papers are now mostly relegated to journals with low-impact factors. Some have forecast the death of the genome paper and argued that they are using up valuable resources and not advancing science. However, the publication rate of genome papers is on the rise. This increase is largely because some journals have created a new category of manuscript called genome reports, which are short, fast-tracked papers describing a chromosome sequence(s), its GenBank accession number and little else. In 2015, for example, more than 2000 genome reports were published, and 2016 is poised to bring even more. Here, I highlight the growing popularity of genome reports and discuss their merits, drawbacks and impact on science and the academic publication infrastructure. Genome reports can be excellent assets for the research community, but they are also being used as quick and easy routes to a publication, and in some instances they are not peer reviewed. One of the best arguments for genome reports is that they are a citable, user-generated genomic resource providing essential methodological and biological information, which may not be present in the sequence database. But they are expensive and time-consuming avenues for achieving such a goal.

GenBank is bursting with eukaryotic RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) results. These data are transforming our view of nuclear transcriptional architecture, but many scientists are ignoring a major component of the data: mitochondrial- and chloroplast-derived sequences. Indeed, organelle transcripts typically represent a significant proportion of the reads generated from eukaryotic RNA-Seq experiments. Here, I argue that these data are an excellent and untapped resource for investigating many aspects of organelle function and evolution.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized genomics and altered the scientific publication landscape. Life-science journals abound with genome papers-peer-reviewed descriptions of newly sequenced chromosomes. Although they once filled the pages of Nature and Science, genome papers are now mostly relegated to journals with low-impact factors. Some have forecast the death of the genome paper and argued that they are using up valuable resources and not advancing science. However, the publication rate of genome papers is on the rise. This increase is largely because some journals have created a new category of manuscript called genome reports, which are short, fast-tracked papers describing a chromosome sequence(s), its GenBank accession number and little else. In 2015, for example, more than 2000 genome reports were published, and 2016 is poised to bring even more. Here, I highlight the growing popularity of genome reports and discuss their merits, drawbacks and impact on science and the academic publication infrastructure. Genome reports can be excellent assets for the research community, but they are also being used as quick and easy routes to a publication, and in some instances they are not peer reviewed. One of the best arguments for genome reports is that they are a citable, user-generated genomic resource providing essential methodological and biological information, which may not be present in the sequence database. But they are expensive and time-consuming avenues for achieving such a goal.

This Short Communication highlights the diversity of ‘secondary’ genome data (like mitochondrial and plastid genomes) that can be gleaned from next-generation sequencing projects, and encourages researchers to be mindful that these data are often as informative and useful as the ‘primary’ genome data.

The year 2014 saw more than a thousand new mitochondrial genome sequences deposited in GenBank—an almost 15% increase from the previous year. Hundreds of peer-reviewed articles accompanied these genomes, making mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) the most sequenced and reported type of eukaryotic chromosome. These mtDNA data have advanced a wide range of scientific fields, from forensics to anthropology to medicine to molecular evolution. But for many biological lineages, mtDNAs are so well sampled that newly published genomes are arguably no longer contributing significantly to the progression of science, and in some cases they are tying up valuable resources, particularly journal editors and referees. Is it time to acknowledge that as a research community we have published enough mitochondrial genome papers? Here, I address this question, exploring the history, milestones and impacts of mitochondrial genomics, the benefits and drawbacks of continuing to publish mtDNAs at a high rate and what the future may hold for such an important and popular genetic marker. I highlight groups for which mtDNAs are still poorly sampled, thus meriting further investigation, and recommend that more energy be spent characterizing aspects of mitochondrial genomes apart from the DNA sequence, such as their chromosomal and transcriptional architectures. Ultimately, one should be mindful before writing a mitochondrial genome paper. Consider perhaps sending the sequence directly to GenBank instead, and be sure to annotate it correctly before submission.