Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25210663›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

Metagenome fragment classification based on multiple motif-occurrence profiles.

Naoki Matsushita, Shigeto Seno, Yoichi Takenaka, Hideo Matsuda

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naoki MatsushitaDepartment of Bioinformatic Engineering, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University , Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka , Japan.
Shigeto SenoDepartment of Bioinformatic Engineering, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University , Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka , Japan.
Yoichi TakenakaDepartment of Bioinformatic Engineering, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University , Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka , Japan.
Hideo MatsudaDepartment of Bioinformatic Engineering, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University , Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka , Japan.
Osaka University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A vast amount of metagenomic data has been obtained by extracting multiple genomes simultaneously from microbial communities, including genomes from uncultivable microbes. By analyzing these metagenomic data, novel microbes are discovered and new microbial functions are elucidated. The first step in analyzing these data is sequenced-read classification into reference genomes from which each read can be derived. The Naïve Bayes Classifier is a method for this classification. To identify the derivation of the reads, this method calculates a score based on the occurrence of a DNA sequence motif in each reference genome. However, large differences in the sizes of the reference genomes can bias the scoring of the reads. This bias might cause erroneous classification and decrease the classification accuracy. To address this issue, we have updated the Naïve Bayes Classifier method using multiple sets of occurrence profiles for each reference genome by normalizing the genome sizes, dividing each genome sequence into a set of subsequences of similar length and generating profiles for each subsequence. This multiple profile strategy improves the accuracy of the results generated by the Naïve Bayes Classifier method for simulated and Sargasso Sea datasets.

Indexed as

Bayes classifierMetagenome analysisMicrobial genome

Identifiers

PMID25210663
PMCPMC4157293
OpenAlexW2103584973

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.