Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30587116›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2018

A new efficient method for analyzing fungi species using correlations between nucleotides.

Xin Zhao, Kun Tian, Stephen S-T Yau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Xin ZhaoDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China.
Kun TianDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China.
Stephen S-T YauDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China. yau@uic.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, DNA barcoding has become an important tool for biologists to identify species and understand their natural biodiversity. The complexity of barcode data makes it difficult to analyze quickly and effectively. Manual classification of this data cannot keep up to the rate of increase of available data.

resultsIn this study, we propose a new method for DNA barcode classification based on the distribution of nucleotides within the sequence. By adding the covariance of nucleotides to the original natural vector, this augmented 18-dimensional natural vector makes good use of the available information in the DNA sequence. The accurate classification results we obtained demonstrate that this new 18-dimensional natural vector method, together with the random forest classifier algorthm, can serve as a computationally efficient identification tool for DNA barcodes. We performed phylogenetic analysis on the genus Megacollybia to validate our method. We also studied how effective our method was in determining the genetic distance within and between species in our barcoding dataset.

conclusionsThe classification performs well on the fungi barcode dataset with high and robust accuracy. The reasonable phylogenetic trees we obtained further validate our methods. This method is alignment-free and does not depend on any model assumption, and it will become a powerful tool for classification and evolutionary analysis.

Indexed as

BiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicFungiPhylogenySequence Analysis, DNA18-dimensional natural vectorClassificationCorrelations between nucleotidesDNA barcodingFungi speciesPhylogenetic analysis

Identifiers

PMID30587116
PMCPMC6307163

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.