Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24721333›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2014

Supervised DNA Barcodes species classification: analysis, comparisons and results.

Emanuel Weitschek, Giulia Fiscon, Giovanni Felici

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparative analysis of weka-based classification algorithms on medical diagnosis datasets.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The efficacy of machine learning algorithm for raw drug authentication inPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Emanuel Weitschek *Department of Engineering, Roma Tre University, Via della Vasca Navale, 79, 00146 Rome, Italy.
Giulia Fiscon *Institute of Systems Analysis and Computer Science Antonio Ruberti, National Research Council, Viale Manzoni, 30, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Giovanni FeliciInstitute of Systems Analysis and Computer Science Antonio Ruberti, National Research Council, Viale Manzoni, 30, 00185 Rome, Italy.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine · USRoma Tre University · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpecific fragments, coming from short portions of DNA (e.g., mitochondrial, nuclear, and plastid sequences), have been defined as DNA Barcode and can be used as markers for organisms of the main life kingdoms. Species classification with DNA Barcode sequences has been proven effective on different organisms. Indeed, specific gene regions have been identified as Barcode: COI in animals, rbcL and matK in plants, and ITS in fungi. The classification problem assigns an unknown specimen to a known species by analyzing its Barcode. This task has to be supported with reliable methods and algorithms.

methodsIn this work the efficacy of supervised machine learning methods to classify species with DNA Barcode sequences is shown. The Weka software suite, which includes a collection of supervised classification methods, is adopted to address the task of DNA Barcode analysis. Classifier families are tested on synthetic and empirical datasets belonging to the animal, fungus, and plant kingdoms. In particular, the function-based method Support Vector Machines (SVM), the rule-based RIPPER, the decision tree C4.5, and the Naïve Bayes method are considered. Additionally, the classification results are compared with respect to ad-hoc and well-established DNA Barcode classification methods.

resultsA software that converts the DNA Barcode FASTA sequences to the Weka format is released, to adapt different input formats and to allow the execution of the classification procedure. The analysis of results on synthetic and real datasets shows that SVM and Naïve Bayes outperform on average the other considered classifiers, although they do not provide a human interpretable classification model. Rule-based methods have slightly inferior classification performances, but deliver the species specific positions and nucleotide assignments. On synthetic data the supervised machine learning methods obtain superior classification performances with respect to the traditional DNA Barcode classification methods. On empirical data their classification performances are at a comparable level to the other methods.

conclusionsThe classification analysis shows that supervised machine learning methods are promising candidates for handling with success the DNA Barcoding species classification problem, obtaining excellent performances. To conclude, a powerful tool to perform species identification is now available to the DNA Barcoding community.

Identifiers

PMID24721333
PMCPMC4022351
OpenAlexW2133445144

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.