ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013
A base composition analysis of natural patterns for the preprocessing of metagenome sequences.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A study of bias and increasing organismal complexity from their post-translational modifications and reaction site interplays.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Alignment-free genetic sequence comparisons: a review of recent approaches by word analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOn the pretext that sequence reads and contigs often exhibit the same kinds of base usage that is also observed in the sequences from which they are derived, we offer a base composition analysis tool. Our tool uses these natural patterns to determine relatedness across sequence data. We introduce spectrum sets (sets of motifs) which are permutations of bacterial restriction sites and the base composition analysis framework to measure their proportional content in sequence data. We suggest that this framework will increase the efficiency during the pre-processing stages of metagenome sequencing and assembly projects.
resultsOur method is able to differentiate organisms and their reads or contigs. The framework shows how to successfully determine the relatedness between these reads or contigs by comparison of base composition. In particular, we show that two types of organismal-sequence data are fundamentally different by analyzing their spectrum set motif proportions (coverage). By the application of one of the four possible spectrum sets, encompassing all known restriction sites, we provide the evidence to claim that each set has a different ability to differentiate sequence data. Furthermore, we show that the spectrum set selection having relevance to one organism, but not to the others of the data set, will greatly improve performance of sequence differentiation even if the fragment size of the read, contig or sequence is not lengthy.
conclusionsWe show the proof of concept of our method by its application to ten trials of two or three freshly selected sequence fragments (reads and contigs) for each experiment across the six organisms of our set. Here we describe a novel and computationally effective pre-processing step for metagenome sequencing and assembly tasks. Furthermore, our base composition method has applications in phylogeny where it can be used to infer evolutionary distances between organisms based on the notion that related organisms often have much conserved code.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.