| Title |
An evaluation of the accuracy and speed of metagenome analysis tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep19233 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors | |
| Abstract |
Metagenome studies are becoming increasingly widespread, yielding important insights into microbial communities covering diverse environments from terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to human skin and gut. With the advent of high-throughput sequencing platforms, the use of large scale shotgun sequencing approaches is now commonplace. However, a thorough independent benchmark comparing state-of-the-art metagenome analysis tools is lacking. Here, we present a benchmark where the most widely used tools are tested on complex, realistic data sets. Our results clearly show that the most widely used tools are not necessarily the most accurate, that the most accurate tool is not necessarily the most time consuming, and that there is a high degree of variability between available tools. These findings are important as the conclusions of any metagenomics study are affected by errors in the predicted community composition and functional capacity. Data sets and results are freely available from http://www.ucbioinformatics.org/metabenchmark.html. |
Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 24 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 11% |
| France | 7 | 6% |
| Australia | 5 | 5% |
| India | 4 | 4% |
| Japan | 4 | 4% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 25 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 58 | 53% |
| Members of the public | 51 | 47% |
Mendeley demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | <1% |
| Germany | 5 | <1% |
| Brazil | 4 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Sweden | 3 | <1% |
| Japan | 3 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 1% |
| Unknown | 876 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 228 | 25% |
| Researcher | 185 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 131 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 84 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 40 | 4% |
| Other | 130 | 14% |
| Unknown | 122 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 318 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 239 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 72 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 42 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 30 | 3% |
| Other | 75 | 8% |
| Unknown | 144 | 16% |