4.5 Article

Unbiased Taxonomic Annotation of Metagenomic Samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 348-360

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2017.0144

关键词

classification; correlation; metagenomics; set cover; taxonomic annotation

资金

  1. INMARE [H2020-BG-2014-2, GA 634486]
  2. EMBRIC [H2020-INFRADEV-1-2014-1, GA 654008]
  3. EXCELERATE [H2020-INFRADEV-1-2015-1, GA 676559]
  4. PRIN (MIUR, Ministero dell'Istruzione, Universita e Ricerca of Italy)
  5. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO/FEDER) [DPI2015-67082-P]
  6. European Regional Development Fund (MINECO/FEDER) [DPI2015-67082-P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The classification of reads from a metagenomic sample using a reference taxonomy is usually based on first mapping the reads to the reference sequences and then classifying each read at a node under the lowest common ancestor of the candidate sequences in the reference taxonomy with the least classification error. However, this taxonomic annotation can be biased by an imbalanced taxonomy and also by the presence of multiple nodes in the taxonomy with the least classification error for a given read. In this article, we show that the Rand index is a better indicator of classification error than the often used area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and F-measure for both balanced and imbalanced reference taxonomies, and we also address the second source of bias by reducing the taxonomic annotation problem for a whole metagenomic sample to a set cover problem, for which a logarithmic approximation can be obtained in linear time and an exact solution can be obtained by integer linear programming. Experimental results with a proof-of-concept implementation of the set cover approach to taxonomic annotation in a next release of the TANGO software show that the set cover approach further reduces ambiguity in the taxonomic annotation obtained with TANGO without distorting the relative abundance profile of the metagenomic sample.

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

4.5
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