ArticleBMC genomics2017
Higher recall in metagenomic sequence classification exploiting overlapping reads.
Article in BMC genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reference-free k-mer based dissimilarity measures for metagenomes comparison.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- MetaComBin: combining abundances and overlaps for binning metagenomics reads.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- A review of model evaluation metrics for machine learning in genetics and genomics.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- MetaCon: unsupervised clustering of metagenomic contigs with probabilistic k-mers statistics and coverage.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Better quality score compression through sequence-based quality smoothing.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years several different fields, such as ecology, medicine and microbiology, have experienced an unprecedented development due to the possibility of direct sequencing of microbioimic samples. Among problems that researchers in the field have to deal with, taxonomic classification of metagenomic reads is one of the most challenging. State of the art methods classify single reads with almost 100% precision. However, very often, the performance in terms of recall falls at about 50%. As a consequence, state-of-the-art methods are indeed capable of correctly classify only half of the reads in the sample. How to achieve better performances in terms of overall quality of classification remains a largely unsolved problem.
resultsIn this paper we propose a method for metagenomics CLassification Improvement with Overlapping Reads (CLIOR), that exploits the information carried by the overlapping reads graph of the input read dataset to improve recall, f-measure, and the estimated abundance of species. In this work, we applied CLIOR on top of the classification produced by the classifier Clark-l. Experiments on simulated and synthetic metagenomes show that CLIOR can lead to substantial improvement of the recall rate, sometimes doubling it. On average, on simulated datasets, the increase of recall is paired with an higher precision too, while on synthetic datasets it comes at expenses of a small loss of precision. On experiments on real metagenomes CLIOR is able to assign many more reads while keeping the abundance ratios in line with previous studies.
conclusionsOur results showed that with CLIOR is possible to boost the recall of a state-of-the-art metagenomic classifier by inferring and/or correcting the assignment of reads with missing or erroneous labeling. CLIOR is not restricted to the reads classification algorithm used in our experiments, but it may be applied to other methods too. Finally, CLIOR does not need large computational resources, and it can be run on a laptop.
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.