The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Repetitive Region

Repetitive Region: Repetitive sequences within a genomic or nucleic acid region, which may include tandem repeats, inverted repeats, or other patterns of repetitive elements.
These regions can play important roles in gene regulation, chromatin structure, and genome organization.
Identifying and analyzing Repetitive Regions can provide insights into genomic and transcriptomic features that influence biological processes and disease states.
The PubCompare.ai platform offers AI-driven tools to help researchers locate and compare protocols related to Repetitive Region analysis, enhancing research reproducibility and productivity.

Most cited protocols related to «Repetitive Region»

Like BLAST, both BLAT and SSAHA2 report all significant alignments or typically tens of top-scoring alignments, but this is not the most desired output in read mapping. We are typically more interested in the best alignment or best few alignments, covering each region of the query sequence. For example, suppose a 1000 bp query sequence consists of a 900 bp segment from one chromosome and a 100 bp segment from another chromosome; 400 bp out of the 900 bp segment is a highly repetitive sequence. For BLAST, to know this is a chimeric read we would need to ask it to report all the alignments of the 400 bp repeat, which is costly and wasteful because in general we are not interested in alignments of short repetitive sequences contained in a longer unique sequence. On this example, a useful output would be to report one alignment each for the 900 bp and the 100 bp segment, and to indicate if the two segments have good suboptimal alignments that may render the best alignment unreliable. Such output simplifies downstream analyses and saves time on reconstructing the detailed alignments of the repetitive sequence.
In BWA-SW, we say two alignments are distinct if the length of the overlapping region on the query is less than half of the length of the shorter query segment. We aim to find a set of distinct alignments which maximizes the sum of scores of each alignment in the set. This problem can be solved by dynamic programming, but as in our case a read is usually aligned entirely, a greedy approximation would work well. In the practical implementation, we sort the local alignments based on their alignment scores, scan the sorted list from the best one and keep an alignment if it is distinct from all the kept alignments with larger scores; if alignment a2 is rejected because it is not distinctive from a1, we regard a2 to be a suboptimal alignment to a1 and use this information to approximate the mapping quality (Section 2.7).
Because we only retain alignments largely non-overlapping on the query sequence, we might as well discard seeds that do not contribute to the final alignments. Detecting such seeds can be done with another heuristic before the Smith–Waterman extension and time spent on unnecessary extension can thus be saved. To identify these seeds, we chain seeds that are contained in a band (default band width 50 bp). If on the query sequence a short chain is fully contained in a long chain and the number of seeds in the short chain is below one-tenth of the number of seeds in the long chain, we discard all the seeds in the short chain, based on the observation that the short chain can rarely lead to a better alignment than the long chain in this case. Unlike the Z-best strategy, this heuristic does not have a noticeable effect on alignment accuracy. On 1000 10 kb simulated data, it halves the running time with no reduction in accuracy.
Publication 2010
BP 100 BP 400 Chimera Chromosomes Plant Embryos Radionuclide Imaging Repetitive Region Sequence Alignment Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
The construction of KOGs followed the previously outlined strategy based on sets of consistent BeTs [9 (link),15 (link)], but included additional steps that reflected specific features of eukaryotic proteins. Briefly, the procedure was as follows. 1. Detection and masking of widespread, typically repetitive domains, which was performed by using the RPS-BLAST program and the PSSMs for the respective domains from the CDD collection [40 (link)]. These domains, namely, PPR (pfam01535), WD40 (pfam00400), IG (pfam00047), IGc1, Igv, IG_like, RRM (pfam00076), ANK (pfam00023), myosin tail (pfam01576), Fn3 (pfam00041), CA, (IG), ANK, kelch (pfam01344), OAD_kelch, SH3 (pfam00018), intermediate filaments (pfam00038), C2H2 finger (pfam00096), PDZ (pfam00595), POZ (pfam00651), PH (pfam00169), ZnF-C4 (pfam00105), spectrin (pfam00435), Sushi (pfam00084), TPR (pfam00017), BTB, LRR_CC, LY, ARM, SH2, and CH, were detected and masked prior to applying the COG construction procedure. Masking these domains was required to ensure the robust classification of the eukaryotic orthologous clusters with the KOG detection procedure because hits between these common, "promiscuous" domains resulted in spurious lumping of numerous non-orthologous proteins. 2. All-against-all comparison of protein sequences from the analyzed genomes by using the gapped BLAST program [58 (link)], with filtering for low sequence complexity regions performed using the SEG program [59 (link)]. 3. Detection of triangles of mutually consistent, genome-specific best hits (BeTs). 4. Merging triangles with a common side to form crude, preliminary KOGs. 5. Case by case analysis of each candidate KOG. This analysis serves to eliminate the false-positives that are incorporated in the KOGs during the automatic steps and included, primarily, examination of the domain composition of KOG members, which was determined using the RPS-BLAST program and the CDD collection of position-specific scoring matrices (PSSMs) for individual domains [40 (link)]. Generally, proteins were kept in the same KOG when they shared a conserved core domain architecture. However, in cases when KOGs were artificially bridged by multidomain proteins, the latter were split into individual domains (or arrays of domains) and steps (1)-(4) were repeated with these sequences; this results in the assignment of individual domains to KOGs in accordance with their distinct evolutionary affinities. 6. Assignment of proteins containing promiscuous domains. In cases when a sequence assigned to a KOG contained one or more masked promiscuous domains, these domains were restored and became part of the respective KOG. Proteins containing promiscuous domains but not assigned to any KOG were classified in Fuzzy Orthologous Groups (FOGs) named after the respective domains. 7. Examination of large KOGs, which included multiple members from all or several of the compared genomes by using phylogenetic trees, cluster analysis with the BLASTCLUST program , comparison of domain architectures, and visual inspection of alignments; as a result, some of these protein sets were split into two or more smaller ones that were included in the final set of KOGs.
The KOGs were annotated on the basis of the annotations available through GenBank and other public databases, which were critically assessed against the primary literature. For proteins that are currently annotated as "hypothetical" or "unknown", iterative sequence similarity searches with the PSI-BLAST program [58 (link)], the results of the RPS-BLAST searches, additional domain architecture analysis performed by using the SMART system [60 (link)], and comparison to the COG database by using the COGNITOR program (RLT, unpublished results) were employed to identify distant homologs with experimentally characterized functions and/or structures. The known and predicted functions of KOGs were classified into 23 categories (see legend to Fig. 4); these were modified from the functional classification previously employed for prokaryotic COGs [15 (link)] by including several specific eukaryotic categories.
Publication 2003
Amino Acid Sequence Biological Evolution Eukaryota Fingers Genome Intermediate Filaments Myosin ATPase Prokaryotic Cells Protein Domain Proteins Repetitive Region SET protein, human Spectrin Tail
CRISPRFinder core routines were developed in Perl under Debian Linux. The input of the web tool is a genomic query sequence of length up to 67 Mb in ‘FASTA’ format. Possible locations of CRISPRs (consisting of at least one motif) are detected by finding maximal repeats. A maximal repeat (26 ) is a repeat that cannot be extended in either direction without incurring a mismatch. The total number of maximal repeats in a sequence of size n is linear (less than n) which is interesting since the computation may be done in linear time using a suffix-tree-based algorithm. A CRISPR pattern of two DRs and a spacer may be considered as a maximal repeat where the repeated sequences are separated by a sequence of approximately the same length.
The operation of the program can be divided into four main steps summarized in Figure 1: (Step 1) browsing the maximal repeats of length 23–55 bp interspaced by sequences of 25–60 bp, (Step 2) selecting the DR consensus according to a defined score taking into account the number of occurrences of the candidate DR in the whole genome and privileging internal mismatches between the DRs rather than mismatches in the first or the last nucleotides, (Step 3) defining candidate CRISPRs after checking if they fit CRISPR definition, (Step 4) eliminating residual tandem repeats.

CRISPR Finder flow chart. (Step 1) Browsing the maximal repeats to get possible CRISPR localizations using the Vmatch program. (Step 2) Consensus DR selection according to candidate occurrences and a score computation: the score privileges internal mismatches between direct repeats of a cluster rather than boundary mismatches. (Step 3) DR and spacers size check. (Step 4) Tandem repeats elimination using ClustalW for aligning spacers.

In the first step, maximal repeats are found by the software Vmatch (http://www.vmatch.de/), the upgrade of REPuter (22–24 ). Vmatch is based on a comprehensive implementation of enhanced suffix arrays (27 ) which provides the power of suffix trees with lower space requirements. A one nucleotide mismatch is allowed permitting minimal CRISPRs with a single nucleotide mutation between DRs to be found. Hereafter, the obtained maximal repeats are grouped to define regions of possible CRISPRs with a display of consensus DR candidates related to each cluster.
The second step is aimed at retrieving the DR consensus of each cluster. The difficulty resides especially in the identification of boundaries, which is very important to extract the correct spacers and compare DRs. In fact, the consensus DR is selected as the maximal repeat which occurs the most in the whole underlying genome sequence with respect to the forward and the reverse complement directions (since two CRISPRs having the same DR consensus may be in opposite directions). Thus, ambiguity in the choice of a DR will be eliminated in the case of presence of similar DRs in other CRISPRs of the related genomic sequence. However, if occurrence numbers are equal, more than a single DR consensus candidate are kept and later compared. Given a candidate consensus DR, the pattern search program fuzznuc of the EMBOSS package (28 (link)) is applied to get DRs’ positions in the related cluster. As the first or the last DR in a CRISPR may be diverged/truncated, a mismatch of one-third of the DR length is allowed between the flanking DRs and the candidate consensus DR, whereas smaller nucleotide differences are allowed between the other DRs to take into account possible single mutations. In case of multiple DR candidates, a score is computed and the best one (minimum) is picked. This score favours candidates which are encountered more frequently, rather than consensus DR showing less internal mismatches.
Once the DR consensus is determined, the corresponding spacers (Step 3) are extracted according to the DR boundaries determined previously. The spacer length is not allowed to be shorter than 0.6 or longer than 2.5 times the DR length. These sizes are in the range of CRISPRs described in the literature.
The last step consists in discarding false CRISPRs. Therefore, tandem repeats are eliminated by comparing the consensus DR with the spacer if there is only one spacer, or by comparing spacers between each other. The comparison is done with the CLUSTALW program (29 (link)) and the percentage of identity between spacers is not allowed to exceed 60%. Finally, candidates having at least three motifs and at least two exactly identical DRs are considered as confirmed CRISPRs. The remaining candidates are considered as questionable. These should be critically investigated by, for example, checking for intraspecies size variation of the locus.
Publication 2007
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats Direct Repeat Genome Mutation Nucleotides Repetitive Region Tandem Repeat Sequences Trees
Total RNA was extracted from EBV transformed lymphoblastoid cell line pellets by the TRIzol reagent (Ambion), and mRNA and small RNA sequencing of 465 unique individuals was performed on the Illumina HiSeq2000 platform, with paired-end 75bp mRNA-seq and single-end 36bp small RNA-seq. Five samples were sequenced in replicate in each of the seven sequencing laboratories. The mRNA and small RNA reads were mapped with GEM31 and miraligner32 (link), respectively, with an average of 48.9M mRNA-seq reads and 1.2M miRNA reads per sample after QC. Numerous transcript features were quantified using Gencode v1233 (link) and miRBase v1834 (link) annotations: protein-coding and lincRNA genes (16,084 detected in >50% of samples), transcripts (67,603; with FluxCapacitor7 (link)), exons (146,498), annotated splice junctions (129,805; analyzed in detail in Ferreira et al. submitted), transcribed repetitive elements (47,409), and mature miRNAs (715). Data quality was assessed by sample correlations and read and gene count distributions, and technical variation was removed by PEER normalization35 (link) for the QTL and miRNA-mRNA correlation analyses11 (link). The samples clustered uniformly both before and after normalization. The genotype data was obtained from 1000 Genomes Phase 1 data set for 421 samples (80× average exome and 5× whole genome read depth), and the remaining 41 samples were imputed from Omni 2.5M SNP array data. Furthermore, we did functional reannotation for all the 1000 Genomes variants using Gencode v12. QTL mapping was done with linear regression, using genetic variants with >5% frequency in 1MB window and normalized quantifications transformed to standard normal. Permutations were used to adjust FDR to 5%. Full details are provided in Supplementary Methods.
Publication 2013
Cell Line, Transformed DNA Replication Exome Exons Genes Genetic Diversity Genome Genotype Long Intergenic Non-Protein Coding RNA MicroRNAs Pellets, Drug Proteins Repetitive Region RNA, Messenger RNA-Seq trizol
The ab initio gene prediction programs Fgenesh [5 (link)], GeneMark.hmm [6 (link)], and GlimmerHMM [4 (link)] were applied to the rice genome sequences. Fgenesh and GlimmerHMM were applied to repeat-masked genome sequences. Repeats were masked using RepeatMasker [50 ] and the rice repeat library [51 (link)]. GeneMark.hmm was applied to the unmasked genome sequence; software problems prevented us from running GeneMark.hmm on all repeat-masked genome sequences, and so we chose instead to use the unmasked genome in this case. The AAT software [12 (link)] was used to generate spliced protein and transcript alignments. For generating spliced protein alignments, AAT was used to search a comprehensive and nonredundant protein database that was first filtered from rice protein sequences. A database of other plant transcript sequences was compiled by downloading and joining all plant gene indices provided by The Gene Index at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute [52 ], excepting the rice gene indices. Rice ESTs and FL-cDNAs were aligned to the rice genome and assembled into gene structures as described previously [53 (link)], with the exception being that the high quality single-exon transcript alignments were included here along with spliced alignments.
Publication 2008
Amino Acid Sequence DNA, Complementary DNA Library Exons Expressed Sequence Tags Genes Genes, Plant Genetic Structures Genome Malignant Neoplasms Plants Proteins Repetitive Region Strains

Most recents protocols related to «Repetitive Region»

Paired-end Illumina libraries were inspected for quality parameters and repetitive sequences using the FastQC software package. Adapter trimming was performed using the trim adapters bbduk script from BBMaps (https://sourceforge.net/projects/bbmap/). Trimmed paired-end files were interleaved for alignment against rRNA libraries using SortMeRNA [61 (link)]. Non-aligned reads were subsequently split into paired forward and reverse files for downstream analyses. A de novo co-assembly was performed using merged forward and reversed adapter trimmed and non-rRNA aligned sequences with rnaSPAdes v.3.14.1 [62 (link)]. Sequence counts at each step for all libraries, in addition to co-assembly summary statistics, are provided in Table S1.
Publication 2023
Repetitive Region Ribosomal RNA
The PiRATE pipeline was used as in the original publication (Berthelier et al., 2018 (link)), including the following steps: 1) Contigs representing repetitive sequences were identified from the assembled contigs using similarity-based, structure-based, and repetitiveness-based approaches. The similarity-based detection programs included RepeatMasker v-4.1.0 (http://repeatmasker.org/RepeatMasker/, using Repbase20.05_REPET.embl.tar.gz as the library instead) and TE-HMMER (Eddy, 2011 (link)). The structural-based detection programs included LTRharvest (Ellinghaus et al., 2008 (link)), MGEScan non-LTR (Rho and Tang, 2009 (link)), HelSearch (Yang et al., 2009 (link)), MITE-Hunter (Han and Wessler, 2010 (link)), and SINE-finder (Wenke et al., 2011 (link)). The repetitiveness-based detection programs included TEdenovo (Flutre et al., 2011 (link)) and RepeatScout (Price et al., 2005 (link)). 2) Repeat consensus sequences (e.g., representing multiple subfamilies within a TE family) were also identified from the cleaned, filtered, and unassembled reads with dnaPipeTE (Goubert et al., 2015 (link)) and RepeatModeler (http://www.repeatmasker.org/RepeatModeler/). 3) Contigs identified by each individual program in steps 1 and 2, above, were filtered to remove those <100 bp in length and clustered with CD-HIT-est (Li and Godzik, 2006 (link)) to reduce redundancy (100% sequence identity cutoff). This yielded a total of 155,999 contigs. 4) All 155,999 contigs were then clustered together with CD-HIT-est (100% sequence identity cutoff), retaining the longest contig and recording the program that classified it. 46,090 contigs were filtered out at this step. 5) The remaining 109,909 repeat contigs were annotated as TEs to the levels of order and superfamily in Wicker’s hierarchical classification system (Wicker et al., 2007 (link)), modified to include several recently discovered TE superfamilies using PASTEC (Hoede et al., 2014 (link)), and checked manually to filter chimeric contigs and those annotated with conflicting evidence (Supplementary File S2). 6) All classified repeats (“known TEs” hereafter), along with the unclassified repeats (“unknown repeats” hereafter) and putative multi-copy host genes, were combined to produce a Ranodon-derived repeat library. 7) For each superfamily, we collapsed the contigs to 95% and 80% sequence identity using CD-HIT-est to provide an overall view of within-superfamily diversity; 80% is the sequence identity threshold used to define TE families (Wicker et al., 2007 (link)).
Publication 2023
BP 100 Chimera Consensus Sequence DNA Library Mites Multiple Birth Offspring Repetitive Region Short Interspersed Nucleotide Elements
To count the number of expressed genes, gene expression was analysed using the reported RNA-seq reads of pooled young-adult females (N = 3) and males (N = 3) under laboratory condition38 (link). Transcripts per million (TPM) of predicted genes of each replication were obtained by salmon79 (link) (version 1.1.0) using transcript sequences of predicted genes as reference. Genes with the median TPM in six replications >0, which include genes with TPM in either all male replications or all female replications >0, were defined as expressed genes. Identification of repeat sequences was performed with the complete assembly with the RepeatScout pipeline as described previously. The proportion of masked regions was defined as ‘Repeat density’. The predicted gene density, expressed gene density and repeat density, GC contents were analysed using custom perl script and R script. For P. pacificus, the newest genome assembly (El_paco) and annotation (El_paco_genome_v3) were used36 (link),74 (link).
Publication 2023
DNA Replication Females Gene Expression Genes Genome Males Repetitive Region Replication Origin RNA-Seq Young Adult
Repetitive elements were identified de novo using RepeatModeler v2.0.1 (Flynn et al. 2020 (link)) with the “LTRStruct” option. RepeatMasker v4.1.1 (Tempel 2012 (link)) was used to screen known repetitive elements with two inputs: (1) the RepeatModeler output and (2) the vertebrata library of Dfam v3.3 (Storer et al. 2021 (link)). The resulting output files were validated and merged before redundancy was removed using GenomeTools v1.6.1 (Gremme et al. 2013 (link)). To identify and annotate candidate gene models, BRAKER v2.1.6 (Brůna et al. 2021 (link)) was used with mRNA and protein evidence. For annotation with BRAKER, the chromosome sequences were soft masked using the maskfasta function of BEDTools v2.30.0 (Quinlan 2014 (link)) with the “soft” option. Protein evidence consisted of protein records from UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot (UniProt Consortium 2021 (link)) as of 2021 January 11 (563,972 sequences) as well as selected fish proteomes from the NCBI database (A. ocellaris: 48,668, Danio rerio: 88,631, Acanthochromis polyacanthus: 36,648, Oreochromis niloticus: 63,760, Oryzias latipes: 47,623, Poecilia reticulata: 45,692, Stegastes partitus: 31,760, Takifugu rubripes: 49,529, and Salmo salar: 112,302). Transcriptomic reads from 13 tissues were used as mRNA evidence. These Illumina short reads were trimmed with Trimmomatic v0.39 (Bolger et al. 2014 (link)) as described above and mapped to the chromosome sequences with HISAT2 v2.2.1 (Kim et al. 2019 (link)). The resulting SAM files were converted to BAM format with SAMtools v1.10 (Li et al. 2009 (link)) and used as input for BRAKER. Of the resulting gene models, only those with supporting evidence (mRNA or protein hints) or with homology to the Swiss-Prot protein database (UniProt Consortium 2021 (link)) or Pfam domains (Mistry et al. 2021 (link)) were selected as final gene models. Homology to Swiss-Prot protein database and Pfam domains was identified using Diamond v2.0.9 (Buchfink et al. 2015 (link)) or InterProScan v5.48.83.0 (Zdobnov and Apweiler 2001 (link)), respectively. Functional annotation of the final gene models was completed using NCBI BLAST v2.10.0 (Altschul et al. 1990 (link)) with the NCBI non-redundant (nr) protein database. Gene Ontology (GO) terms were assigned to A. clarkii genes using the BLAST output and the “gene2go” and “gene2accession” files from the NCBI ftp site (https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/DATA/). Completeness of the gene annotation was assessed with BUSCO v4.1.4 (actinopterygii_odb10) (Simão et al. 2015 (link)).
Publication 2023
Chromosomes Diamond DNA Library Fishes Gene Annotation Gene Expression Profiling Genes Lebistes Oreochromis niloticus Oryzias latipes Proteins Proteome Repetitive Region RNA, Messenger Salmo salar Takifugu rubripes Tissues Vertebrates Zebrafish
Insertion events are known to be caused by various mechanisms and have various consequences [26 (link)]. To characterize and investigate the origins of the detected insertions, we decomposed them into TRs, TEs, tandem duplications (TDs), satellite sequences, dispersed duplications, processed pseudogenes, alternative sequences, “deletions” in GRCh38, and nuclear mitochondrial DNA sequences (NUMTs).
We first applied Tandem Repeats Finder (TRF) [27 ] to all inserted sequences and defined TRs as having (1) element lengths < 50 bp and (2) covering more than 50% of an inserted sequence. After filtering TRs, we identified TEs using RepeatMasker [28 ] if (1) an inserted sequence covered a TE > 50%, (2) the inserted sequence was covered by the TE > 50% (reciprocal overlap), and (3) the total substitutions and indels were < 50% (matching condition).
Previous studies have reported that TDs are understudied but widespread [26 (link), 29 (link)]. After detecting TRs and TEs, we manually reviewed the remaining insertions and found that they contained TDs derived from non-repetitive regions in the reference. We considered these insertions as TDs. To identify this class of insertions, we aligned all insertions except TRs to GRCh38 using BLAT [30 (link)]. We then collected insertions mapped to original breakpoints within 5 bp with > 90% in BLAT identity and defined them as TDs. In this process, missing TRs with long repeat elements were found. Therefore, they were added to the TR callset if (1) an inserted sequence aligned within 500 bp from the insertion breakpoint and (2) the ratio of the total number of matching bases to the insertion length was > 0.5.
To understand the remaining insertions, we manually checked their features by aligning them to the reference using BLAT [30 (link)]. We identified insertions that were aligned from end to end to different chromosomal regions with high identity (> 90%). We defined these insertions as dispersed duplications. Next, we detected insertions aligned to a series of exons and untranslated regions (UTRs) of coding genes with high identity (> 90%) and classified them as processed pseudogenes. We also found other insertions aligned to the alternative sequences (e.g., “alt” or “fix” sequences) on BLAT with high identity (> 90%). We classified them as alternative sequences. Some of the insertions left at this point were thought to have arisen by deletion events in GRCh38 because they were securely aligned to the chimpanzee reference genome (panTro6), although they were classified as insertions when compared with GRCh38 [3 (link)]. We aligned the remaining insertions to the panTro6 assembly and categorized the insertions that lifted over panTro6 with high accuracy (> 90%) within 100 bp of the inserted position on GRCh38 as "deletions” in GRCh38. After this, the remaining insertions were manually reviewed, and features of the genomic regions (segmental duplications or self-chain) were examined.
Publication 2023
BP 100 Chromosomes Deletion Mutation DNA, Mitochondrial Exons Gene Deletion Gene Insertion Genes Genome INDEL Mutation Insertion Mutation Mitochondria Pan troglodytes Pseudogenes Repetitive Region Segmental Duplications, Genomic Tandem Repeat Sequences Untranslated Regions

Top products related to «Repetitive Region»

Sourced in United States, China, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, Australia, France, India, Hong Kong, Spain, Cameroon, Austria, Denmark, Italy, Singapore, Brazil, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Israel
The HiSeq 2500 is a high-throughput DNA sequencing system designed for a wide range of applications, including whole-genome sequencing, targeted sequencing, and transcriptome analysis. The system utilizes Illumina's proprietary sequencing-by-synthesis technology to generate high-quality sequencing data with speed and accuracy.
Sourced in United States, China, Germany, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, France, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Cameroon, Spain, India, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Singapore, Brazil
The HiSeq 2000 is a high-throughput DNA sequencing system designed by Illumina. It utilizes sequencing-by-synthesis technology to generate large volumes of sequence data. The HiSeq 2000 is capable of producing up to 600 gigabases of sequence data per run.
Sourced in Germany, United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Japan, China, France, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Hungary
The DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit is a DNA extraction and purification product designed for the isolation of genomic DNA from a variety of sample types, including blood, tissues, and cultured cells. The kit utilizes a silica-based membrane technology to efficiently capture and purify DNA, providing high-quality samples suitable for use in various downstream applications.
Sourced in United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Austria, Morocco, Switzerland, Australia, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, China, France, Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Malaysia, Israel, Finland, Spain
MATLAB is a high-performance programming language and numerical computing environment used for scientific and engineering calculations, data analysis, and visualization. It provides a comprehensive set of tools for solving complex mathematical and computational problems.
Sourced in Netherlands
The Intera Achieva 3.0MR is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system manufactured by Philips. It operates at a magnetic field strength of 3.0 Tesla and is designed for diagnostic imaging purposes.
Sourced in United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands
The Discovery MR750 is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system developed by GE Healthcare. It is designed to provide high-quality imaging for a variety of clinical applications.
Sourced in Germany, United States, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Spain, Japan, China, Italy, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Sweden, India, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark
The QIAamp DNA Mini Kit is a laboratory equipment product designed for the purification of genomic DNA from a variety of sample types. It utilizes a silica-membrane-based technology to efficiently capture and purify DNA, which can then be used for various downstream applications.
Sourced in Germany, United States
The MAGNETOM Skyra is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system developed by Siemens. It is designed to provide high-quality imaging for various medical applications. The MAGNETOM Skyra utilizes advanced technology to generate detailed images of the body's internal structures without the use of ionizing radiation.
Sourced in United States, China, Germany, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Australia, Hong Kong, Finland
The Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System is a laboratory tool designed to measure and compare the activity of two different luciferase reporter genes simultaneously. The system provides a quantitative method for analyzing gene expression and regulation in transfected or transduced cells.
Sourced in United States, China, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, France, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, India, Denmark, Singapore, Spain, Cameroon, Belgium, Netherlands, Czechia
The NovaSeq 6000 is a high-throughput sequencing system designed for large-scale genomic projects. It utilizes Illumina's sequencing by synthesis (SBS) technology to generate high-quality sequencing data. The NovaSeq 6000 can process multiple samples simultaneously and is capable of producing up to 6 Tb of data per run, making it suitable for a wide range of applications, including whole-genome sequencing, exome sequencing, and RNA sequencing.

More about "Repetitive Region"

Repetitive regions, also known as repetitive sequences or tandem repeats, are genomic or nucleic acid regions that exhibit patterns of repetitive elements.
These regions play crucial roles in gene regulation, chromatin structure, and genome organization, providing valuable insights into biological processes and disease states.
Researchers can leverage advanced tools and techniques to analyze repetitive regions, enhancing their research productivity and reproducibility.
The PubCompare.ai platform, for example, offers AI-driven tools that help researchers locate and compare protocols related to repetitive region analysis, enabling them to identify the most reliable and efficient methods.
Some key techniques and technologies relevant to repetitive region analysis include: - High-throughput sequencing platforms like HiSeq 2500, HiSeq 2000, and NovaSeq 6000, which enable efficient DNA sequencing and data generation. - DNA extraction and purification kits such as the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit and QIAamp DNA Mini Kit, which provide high-quality genomic DNA samples for downstream analysis. - Computational tools like MATLAB, which can be used for data processing, visualization, and analysis of repetitive region patterns. - Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques, including Intera Achieva 3.0MR and Discovery MR750, which can provide insights into the spatial distribution and structural characteristics of repetitive regions within the genome. - Reporter assays, such as the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System, that can be used to investigate the functional impact of repetitive regions on gene expression and regulation.
By leveraging these tools and techniques, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the complex roles played by repetitive regions in shaping biological processes and disease states, ultimately advancing scientific knowledge and driving innovation in various fields.