↓ Skip to main content

GeFaST: An improved method for OTU assignment by generalising Swarm’s fastidious clustering approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
GeFaST: An improved method for OTU assignment by generalising Swarm’s fastidious clustering approach
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2349-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Müller, Markus E. Nebel

Abstract

Massive genomic data sets from high-throughput sequencing allow for new insights into complex biological systems such as microbial communities. Analyses of their diversity and structure are typically preceded by clustering millions of 16S rRNA gene sequences into OTUs. Swarm introduced a new clustering strategy which addresses important conceptual and performance issues of the popular de novo clustering approach. However, some parts of the new strategy, e.g. the fastidious option for increased clustering quality, come with their own restrictions. In this paper, we present the new exact, alignment-based de novo clustering tool GeFaST, which implements a generalisation of Swarm's fastidious clustering. Our tool extends the fastidious option to arbitrary clustering thresholds and allows to adjust its greediness. GeFaST was evaluated on mock-community and natural data and achieved higher clustering quality and performance for small to medium clustering thresholds compared to Swarm and other de novo tools. Clustering with GeFaST was between 6 and 197 times as fast as with Swarm, while the latter required up to 38% less memory for non-fastidious clustering but at least three times as much memory for fastidious clustering. GeFaST extends the scope of Swarm's clustering strategy by generalising its fastidious option, thereby allowing for gains in clustering quality, and by increasing its performance (especially in the fastidious case). Our evaluations showed that GeFaST has the potential to leverage the use of the (fastidious) clustering strategy for higher thresholds and on larger data sets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Other 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Computer Science 4 15%
Environmental Science 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,626,495
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,239
of 7,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,241
of 337,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#58
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 337,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.