↓ Skip to main content

Statistical Methods for Detecting Differentially Abundant Features in Clinical Metagenomic Samples

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1340 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1109 Mendeley
citeulike
27 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
Statistical Methods for Detecting Differentially Abundant Features in Clinical Metagenomic Samples
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, April 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000352
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Robert White, Niranjan Nagarajan, Mihai Pop

Abstract

Numerous studies are currently underway to characterize the microbial communities inhabiting our world. These studies aim to dramatically expand our understanding of the microbial biosphere and, more importantly, hope to reveal the secrets of the complex symbiotic relationship between us and our commensal bacterial microflora. An important prerequisite for such discoveries are computational tools that are able to rapidly and accurately compare large datasets generated from complex bacterial communities to identify features that distinguish them.We present a statistical method for comparing clinical metagenomic samples from two treatment populations on the basis of count data (e.g. as obtained through sequencing) to detect differentially abundant features. Our method, Metastats, employs the false discovery rate to improve specificity in high-complexity environments, and separately handles sparsely-sampled features using Fisher's exact test. Under a variety of simulations, we show that Metastats performs well compared to previously used methods, and significantly outperforms other methods for features with sparse counts. We demonstrate the utility of our method on several datasets including a 16S rRNA survey of obese and lean human gut microbiomes, COG functional profiles of infant and mature gut microbiomes, and bacterial and viral metabolic subsystem data inferred from random sequencing of 85 metagenomes. The application of our method to the obesity dataset reveals differences between obese and lean subjects not reported in the original study. For the COG and subsystem datasets, we provide the first statistically rigorous assessment of the differences between these populations. The methods described in this paper are the first to address clinical metagenomic datasets comprising samples from multiple subjects. Our methods are robust across datasets of varied complexity and sampling level. While designed for metagenomic applications, our software can also be applied to digital gene expression studies (e.g. SAGE). A web server implementation of our methods and freely available source code can be found at http://metastats.cbcb.umd.edu/.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 1,109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 35 3%
United Kingdom 10 <1%
Brazil 9 <1%
France 8 <1%
Germany 7 <1%
Spain 6 <1%
Italy 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Other 21 2%
Unknown 1002 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 285 26%
Researcher 260 23%
Student > Master 137 12%
Student > Bachelor 61 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 57 5%
Other 173 16%
Unknown 136 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 495 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 130 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 57 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 5%
Environmental Science 54 5%
Other 147 13%
Unknown 169 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,687,422
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#3,753
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,111
of 106,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#18
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 106,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.