RESUMEN
Clear underwater images can help researchers detect cold seeps, gas hydrates, and biological resources. However, the quality of these images suffers from nonuniform lighting, a limited range of visibility, and unwanted signals. CycleGAN has been broadly studied in regard to underwater image enhancement, but it is difficult to apply the model for the further detection of Haima cold seeps in the South China Sea because the model can be difficult to train if the dataset used is not appropriate. In this article, we devise a new method of building a dataset using MSRCR and choose the best images based on the widely used UIQM scheme to build the dataset. The experimental results show that a good CycleGAN could be trained with the dataset using the proposed method. The model has good potential for applications in detecting the Haima cold seeps and can be applied to other cold seeps, such as the cold seeps in the North Sea. We conclude that the method used for building the dataset can be applied to train CycleGAN when enhancing images from cold seeps.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide investigators with an inexpensive platform for human whole exome sequencing that achieves a rapid turnaround time. However, few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. The Ion Proton sequencer combined with the Ion TargetSeq Exome Enrichment Kit together make up TargetSeq-Proton, whereas SureSelect-Hiseq is based on the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon v4 Kit and the HiSeq 2000 sequencer. RESULTS: Here, we sequenced exonic DNA from four human blood samples using both TargetSeq-Proton and SureSelect-HiSeq. We then called variants in the exonic regions that overlapped between the two exome capture kits (33.6 Mb). The rates of shared variant loci called by two sequencing platforms were from 68.0 to 75.3% in four samples, whereas the concordance of co-detected variant loci reached 99%. Sanger sequencing validation revealed that the validated rate of concordant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (91.5%) was higher than the SNPs specific to TargetSeq-Proton (60.0%) or specific to SureSelect-HiSeq (88.3%). With regard to 1-bp small insertions and deletions (InDels), the Sanger sequencing validated rates of concordant variants (100.0%) and SureSelect-HiSeq-specific (89.6%) were higher than those of TargetSeq-Proton-specific (15.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In the sequencing of exonic regions, a combination of using of two sequencing strategies (SureSelect-HiSeq and TargetSeq-Proton) increased the variant calling specificity for concordant variant loci and the sensitivity for variant loci called by any one platform. However, for the sequencing of platform-specific variants, the accuracy of variant calling by HiSeq 2000 was higher than that of Ion Proton, specifically for the InDel detection. Moreover, the variant calling software also influences the detection of SNPs and, specifically, InDels in Ion Proton exome sequencing.
