↓ Skip to main content

Utilization of defined microbial communities enables effective evaluation of meta-genomic assemblies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Utilization of defined microbial communities enables effective evaluation of meta-genomic assemblies
Published in
BMC Genomics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3679-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

William W. Greenwald, Niels Klitgord, Victor Seguritan, Shibu Yooseph, J. Craig Venter, Chad Garner, Karen E. Nelson, Weizhong Li

Abstract

Metagenomics is the study of the microbial genomes isolated from communities found on our bodies or in our environment. By correctly determining the relation between human health and the human associated microbial communities, novel mechanisms of health and disease can be found, thus enabling the development of novel diagnostics and therapeutics. Due to the diversity of the microbial communities, strategies developed for aligning human genomes cannot be utilized, and genomes of the microbial species in the community must be assembled de novo. However, in order to obtain the best metagenomic assemblies, it is important to choose the proper assembler. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of metagenomics, new assemblers are constantly created, and the field has not yet agreed on a standardized process. Furthermore, the truth sets used to compare these methods are either too simple (computationally derived diverse communities) or complex (microbial communities of unknown composition), yielding results that are hard to interpret. In this analysis, we interrogate the strengths and weaknesses of five popular assemblers through the use of defined biological samples of known genomic composition and abundance. We assessed the performance of each assembler on their ability to reassemble genomes, call taxonomic abundances, and recreate open reading frames (ORFs). We tested five metagenomic assemblers: Omega, metaSPAdes, IDBA-UD, metaVelvet and MEGAHIT on known and synthetic metagenomic data sets. MetaSPAdes excelled in diverse sets, IDBA-UD performed well all around, metaVelvet had high accuracy in high abundance organisms, and MEGAHIT was able to accurately differentiate similar organisms within a community. At the ORF level, metaSPAdes and MEGAHIT had the least number of missing ORFs within diverse and similar communities respectively. Depending on the metagenomics question asked, the correct assembler for the task at hand will differ. It is important to choose the appropriate assembler, and thus clearly define the biological problem of an experiment, as different assemblers will give different answers to the same question.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 4%
Germany 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 78 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 24%
Computer Science 12 14%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 14 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,319,049
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#682
of 10,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,435
of 311,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#24
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,787 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.