Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31640809›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2019

Robust taxonomic classification of uncharted microbial sequences and bins with CAT and BAT.

F A Bastiaan von Meijenfeldt, Ksenia Arkhipova, Diego D Cambuy, Felipe H Coutinho, Bas E Dutilh

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 303 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
303citing papers in PubMed
22.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

303 citing papers in PubMed, 569 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

243 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

F A Bastiaan von MeijenfeldtTheoretical Biology and Bioinformatics, Science for Life, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ksenia ArkhipovaTheoretical Biology and Bioinformatics, Science for Life, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Diego D CambuyTheoretical Biology and Bioinformatics, Science for Life, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Felipe H CoutinhoCentre for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bas E DutilhTheoretical Biology and Bioinformatics, Science for Life, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. bedutilh@gmail.com.
Utrecht University · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current-day metagenomics analyses increasingly involve de novo taxonomic classification of long DNA sequences and metagenome-assembled genomes. Here, we show that the conventional best-hit approach often leads to classifications that are too specific, especially when the sequences represent novel deep lineages. We present a classification method that integrates multiple signals to classify sequences (Contig Annotation Tool, CAT) and metagenome-assembled genomes (Bin Annotation Tool, BAT). Classifications are automatically made at low taxonomic ranks if closely related organisms are present in the reference database and at higher ranks otherwise. The result is a high classification precision even for sequences from considerably unknown organisms.

Indexed as

Genome, MicrobialAlgorithmsClassificationMetagenomicsOpen Reading Frames

Identifiers

PMID31640809
PMCPMC6805573
OpenAlexW2981413553

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.