ArticleJournal of biometrics & biostatistics2014
A Statistical Approach to Correcting Cross-Annotations in a Metagenomic Functional Profile Generated by Short Reads.
Article in Journal of biometrics & biostatistics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Statistical correction for functional metagenomic profiling of a microbial community with short NGS reads.Journal of applied statistics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCategorizing protein coding sequences into one family, if the proteins they encode perform the same biochemical function, and then tabulating the relative abundances among all the families, is a widely-adopted practice for functional profiling of a metagenomic sample. By homology searching of metagenomic sequencing reads against a protein database, the relative abundance of a family can be represented by the number of reads aligned to its members. However, it has been observed that, for short reads generated by next-generation sequencing platforms, some may be erroneously assigned to the functional families they are not associated to. This commonly occurred phenomenon is termed as cross-annotation. Current methods for functional profiling of a metagenomic sample use empirical cutoff values, to select the alignments and ignore such cross-annotation problem, or employ summarized equation to do a simple adjustment.
resultBy introducing latent variables, we use the Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis to model the proportions of reads assigned to functional families in a metagenomic sample. The approach can be applied on a metagenomic sample after the list of the true functional families being obtained or estimated. It was implemented in metagenomic samples functionally characterized by the database of Clusters of Orthologous Groups of proteins, and successfully addressed the cross-annotation issue on both
conclusionsCorrecting cross-annotation will increase the accuracy of the functional profiling of a metagenome generated by short reads. It will further benefit differential abundance analysis of metagenomic samples under different conditions.
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.