Chapter title |
Comparative Metagenomics
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 8 |
Book title |
Comparative Genomics
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7463-4_8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7461-0, 978-1-4939-7463-4
|
Authors |
Andrew Maltez Thomas, Felipe Prata Lima, Livia Maria Silva Moura, Aline Maria da Silva, Emmanuel Dias-Neto, João C. Setubal |
Abstract |
Thanks in large part to newer, better, and cheaper DNA sequencing technologies, an enormous number of metagenomic sequence datasets have been and continue to be generated, covering a huge variety of environmental niches, including several different human body sites. Comparing these metagenomes and identifying their commonalities and differences is a challenging task, due not only to the large amounts of data, but also because there are several methodological considerations that need to be taken into account to ensure an appropriate and sound comparison between datasets. In this chapter, we describe current techniques aimed at comparing metagenomes generated by 16S ribosomal RNA and shotgun DNA sequencing, emphasizing methodological issues that arise in these comparative studies. We provide a detailed case study to illustrate some of these techniques using data from the Human Microbiome Project comparing the microbial communities from ten buccal mucosa samples with ten tongue dorsum samples in terms of alpha diversity, beta diversity, and their taxonomic and functional profiles. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 18% |
Germany | 2 | 9% |
Malaysia | 1 | 5% |
Sweden | 1 | 5% |
France | 1 | 5% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
Chile | 1 | 5% |
India | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 12 | 55% |
Members of the public | 10 | 45% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
Researcher | 6 | 11% |
Professor | 3 | 6% |
Other | 10 | 19% |
Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 22% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 17% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 9% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
Computer Science | 5 | 9% |
Other | 4 | 7% |
Unknown | 14 | 26% |