4.7 Article

Investigating microbial co-occurrence patterns based on metagenomic compositional data

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 31, 期 20, 页码 3322-3329

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv364

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMS-1043080, DMS-1222592]
  2. National Institutes of Health [P30 ES006694]
  3. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project [ARZT-1360830-H22-138]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1222592] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: The high-throughput sequencing technologies have provided a powerful tool to study the microbial organisms living in various environments. Characterizing microbial interactions can give us insights into how they live and work together as a community. Metagonomic data are usually summarized in a compositional fashion due to varying sampling/sequencing depths from one sample to another. We study the co-occurrence patterns of microbial organisms using their relative abundance information. Analyzing compositional data using conventional correlation methods has been shown prone to bias that leads to artifactual correlations. Results: We propose a novel method, regularized estimation of the basis covariance based on compositional data (REBACCA), to identify significant co-occurrence patterns by finding sparse solutions to a system with a deficient rank. To be specific, we construct the system using log ratios of count or proportion data and solve the system using the l(1)-norm shrinkage method. Our comprehensive simulation studies show that REBACCA (i) achieves higher accuracy in general than the existing methods when a sparse condition is satisfied; (ii) controls the false positives at a pre-specified level, while other methods fail in various cases and (iii) runs considerably faster than the existing comparable method. REBACCA is also applied to several real metagenomic datasets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据