↓ Skip to main content

Decontaminating eukaryotic genome assemblies with machine learning

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
67 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Decontaminating eukaryotic genome assemblies with machine learning
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1941-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janna L. Fierst, Duncan A. Murdock

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing has made it theoretically possible to obtain high-quality de novo assembled genome sequences but in practice DNA extracts are often contaminated with sequences from other organisms. Currently, there are few existing methods for rigorously decontaminating eukaryotic assemblies. Those that do exist filter sequences based on nucleotide similarity to contaminants and risk eliminating sequences from the target organism. We introduce a novel application of an established machine learning method, a decision tree, that can rigorously classify sequences. The major strength of the decision tree is that it can take any measured feature as input and does not require a priori identification of significant descriptors. We use the decision tree to classify de novo assembled sequences and compare the method to published protocols. A decision tree performs better than existing methods when classifying sequences in eukaryotic de novo assemblies. It is efficient, readily implemented, and accurately identifies target and contaminant sequences. Importantly, a decision tree can be used to classify sequences according to measured descriptors and has potentially many uses in distilling biological datasets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 27%
Computer Science 6 6%
Unspecified 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 22 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#969,931
of 25,646,963 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#68
of 7,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,613
of 446,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#2
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,646,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 446,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.