ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020
A big data approach to metagenomics for all-food-sequencing.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single nucleotide polymorphism information estimates breed and variety composition ratio in food.Current research in food science · 2026Article
- Citywide metagenomic surveillance of food centres reveals local microbial signatures and antibiotic resistance gene enrichment.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding the "individual drug reaction" from the perspective of the interaction between probiotics and lovastatin in vitro and in vivo.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Metagenomics: An Effective Approach for Exploring Microbial Diversity and Functions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Application of Metagenomics to Study Microbial Communities and Develop Desirable Traits in Fermented Foods.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Big Data in metagenomics: Apache Spark vs MPI.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAll-Food-Sequencing (AFS) is an untargeted metagenomic sequencing method that allows for the detection and quantification of food ingredients including animals, plants, and microbiota. While this approach avoids some of the shortcomings of targeted PCR-based methods, it requires the comparison of sequence reads to large collections of reference genomes. The steadily increasing amount of available reference genomes establishes the need for efficient big data approaches.
resultsWe introduce an alignment-free k-mer based method for detection and quantification of species composition in food and other complex biological matters. It is orders-of-magnitude faster than our previous alignment-based AFS pipeline. In comparison to the established tools CLARK, Kraken2, and Kraken2+Bracken it is superior in terms of false-positive rate and quantification accuracy. Furthermore, the usage of an efficient database partitioning scheme allows for the processing of massive collections of reference genomes with reduced memory requirements on a workstation (AFS-MetaCache) or on a Spark-based compute cluster (MetaCacheSpark).
conclusionsWe present a fast yet accurate screening method for whole genome shotgun sequencing-based biosurveillance applications such as food testing. By relying on a big data approach it can scale efficiently towards large-scale collections of complex eukaryotic and bacterial reference genomes. AFS-MetaCache and MetaCacheSpark are suitable tools for broad-scale metagenomic screening applications. They are available at https://muellan.github.io/metacache/afs.html (C++ version for a workstation) and https://github.com/jmabuin/MetaCacheSpark (Spark version for big data clusters).
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.