Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18442374›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

Binning sequences using very sparse labels within a metagenome.

Chon-Kit Kenneth Chan, Arthur L Hsu, Saman K Halgamuge, Sen-Lin Tang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A clinician's guide to microbiome analysis.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Separating metagenomic short reads into genomes via clustering.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2012
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Metagenomics - a guide from sampling to data analysis.Microbial informatics and experimentation · 2012
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Unsupervised two-way clustering of metagenomic sequences.Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chon-Kit Kenneth ChanResearch Centre for Biodiversity, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. cckenneth@gmail.com
Arthur L Hsu
Saman K Halgamuge
Sen-Lin Tang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn metagenomic studies, a process called binning is necessary to assign contigs that belong to multiple species to their respective phylogenetic groups. Most of the current methods of binning, such as BLAST, k-mer and PhyloPythia, involve assigning sequence fragments by comparing sequence similarity or sequence composition with already-sequenced genomes that are still far from comprehensive. We propose a semi-supervised seeding method for binning that does not depend on knowledge of completed genomes. Instead, it extracts the flanking sequences of highly conserved 16S rRNA from the metagenome and uses them as seeds (labels) to assign other reads based on their compositional similarity.

resultsThe proposed seeding method is implemented on an unsupervised Growing Self-Organising Map (GSOM), and called Seeded GSOM (S-GSOM). We compared it with four well-known semi-supervised learning methods in a preliminary test, separating random-length prokaryotic sequence fragments sampled from the NCBI genome database. We identified the flanking sequences of the highly conserved 16S rRNA as suitable seeds that could be used to group the sequence fragments according to their species. S-GSOM showed superior performance compared to the semi-supervised methods tested. Additionally, S-GSOM may also be used to visually identify some species that do not have seeds. The proposed method was then applied to simulated metagenomic datasets using two different confidence threshold settings and compared with PhyloPythia, k-mer and BLAST. At the reference taxonomic level Order, S-GSOM outperformed all k-mer and BLAST results and showed comparable results with PhyloPythia for each of the corresponding confidence settings, where S-GSOM performed better than PhyloPythia in the >/= 10 reads datasets and comparable in the > or = 8 kb benchmark tests.

conclusionIn the task of binning using semi-supervised learning methods, results indicate S-GSOM to be the best of the methods tested. Most importantly, the proposed method does not require knowledge from known genomes and uses only very few labels (one per species is sufficient in most cases), which are extracted from the metagenome itself. These advantages make it a very attractive binning method. S-GSOM outperformed the binning methods that depend on already-sequenced genomes, and compares well to the current most advanced binning method, PhyloPythia.

Indexed as

Database Management SystemsPhylogenyAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceBase SequenceConfidence IntervalsDatabases, GeneticGenes, rRNAGenomicsInformation Storage and RetrievalPattern Recognition, AutomatedRNA, ArchaealRNA, BacterialSample SizeSequence Analysis, RNASpecies SpecificityRNA, ArchaealRNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID18442374
PMCPMC2383919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.