ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
MetaBMF: a scalable binning algorithm for large-scale reference-free metagenomic studies.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. 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.
- Binning Metagenomic Contigs Using Unsupervised Clustering and Reference Databases.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2022Article
- Constructing metagenome-assembled genomes for almost all components in a real bacterial consortium for binning benchmarking.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- MetaCRS: unsupervised clustering of contigs with the recursive strategy of reducing metagenomic dataset's complexity.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- A review of the resistome within the digestive tract of livestock.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Metagenomic approaches in microbial ecology: an update on whole-genome and marker gene sequencing analyses.Microbial genomics · 2020Review
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
Abstract
motivationMetagenomics studies microbial genomes in an ecosystem such as the gastrointestinal tract of a human. Identification of novel microbial species and quantification of their distributional variations among different samples that are sequenced using next-generation-sequencing technology hold the key to the success of most metagenomic studies. To achieve these goals, we propose a simple yet powerful metagenomic binning method, MetaBMF. The method does not require prior knowledge of reference genomes and produces highly accurate results, even at a strain level. Thus, it can be broadly used to identify disease-related microbial organisms that are not well-studied.
resultsMathematically, we count the number of mapped reads on each assembled genomic fragment cross different samples as our input matrix and propose a scalable stratified angle regression algorithm to factorize this count matrix into a product of a binary matrix and a nonnegative matrix. The binary matrix can be used to separate microbial species and the nonnegative matrix quantifies the species distributions in different samples. In simulation and empirical studies, we demonstrate that MetaBMF has a high binning accuracy. It can not only bin DNA fragments accurately at a species level but also at a strain level. As shown in our example, we can accurately identify the Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli O104: H4 strain which led to the 2011 German E.coli outbreak. Our efforts in these areas should lead to (i) fundamental advances in metagenomic binning, (ii) development and refinement of technology for the rapid identification and quantification of microbial distributions and (iii) finding of potential probiotics or reliable pathogenic bacterial strains. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The software is available at https://github.com/didi10384/MetaBMF.
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.