↓ Skip to main content

LAF: Logic Alignment Free and its application to bacterial genomes classification

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
LAF: Logic Alignment Free and its application to bacterial genomes classification
Published in
BioData Mining, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13040-015-0073-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emanuel Weitschek, Fabio Cunial, Giovanni Felici

Abstract

Alignment-free algorithms can be used to estimate the similarity of biological sequences and hence are often applied to the phylogenetic reconstruction of genomes. Most of these algorithms rely on comparing the frequency of all the distinct substrings of fixed length (k-mers) that occur in the analyzed sequences. In this paper, we present Logic Alignment Free (LAF), a method that combines alignment-free techniques and rule-based classification algorithms in order to assign biological samples to their taxa. This method searches for a minimal subset of k-mers whose relative frequencies are used to build classification models as disjunctive-normal-form logic formulas (if-then rules). We apply LAF successfully to the classification of bacterial genomes to their corresponding taxonomy. In particular, we succeed in obtaining reliable classification at different taxonomic levels by extracting a handful of rules, each one based on the frequency of just few k-mers. State of the art methods to adjust the frequency of k-mers to the character distribution of the underlying genomes have negligible impact on classification performance, suggesting that the signal of each class is strong and that LAF is effective in identifying it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 16%
Computer Science 3 16%
Psychology 1 5%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,847
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#225
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,144
of 388,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 388,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.