Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38298179›Full record

ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2024

NeuralBeds: Neural embeddings for efficient DNA data compression and optimized similarity search.

Oluwafemi A Sarumi, Maximilian Hahn, Dominik Heider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Oluwafemi A SarumiDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Marburg, Hans-Meerwein-Str. 6, Marburg, D-35043, Germany.
Maximilian HahnDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Marburg, Hans-Meerwein-Str. 6, Marburg, D-35043, Germany.
Dominik HeiderDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Marburg, Hans-Meerwein-Str. 6, Marburg, D-35043, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The availability of high throughput sequencing tools coupled with the declining costs in the production of DNA sequences has led to the generation of enormous amounts of omics data curated in several databases such as NCBI and EMBL. Identification of similar DNA sequences from these databases is one of the fundamental tasks in bioinformatics. It is essential for discovering homologous sequences in organisms, phylogenetic studies of evolutionary relationships among several biological entities, or detection of pathogens. Improving DNA similarity search is of outmost importance because of the increased complexity of the evergrowing repositories of sequences. Therefore, instead of using the conventional approach of comparing raw sequences, e.g., in fasta format, a numerical representation of the sequences can be used to calculate their similarities and optimize the search process. In this study, we analyzed different approaches for numerical embeddings, including Chaos Game Representation, hashing, and neural networks, and compared them with classical approaches such as principal component analysis. It turned out that neural networks generate embeddings that are able to capture the similarity between DNA sequences as a distance measure and outperform the other approaches on DNA similarity search, significantly.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDNA similarityNeural embeddings

Identifiers

PMID38298179
PMCPMC10828564

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.