↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of Microbiome Data in the Presence of Excess Zeros

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
231 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
341 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
Analysis of Microbiome Data in the Presence of Excess Zeros
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abhishek Kaul, Siddhartha Mandal, Ori Davidov, Shyamal D. Peddada

Abstract

Motivation: An important feature of microbiome count data is the presence of a large number of zeros. A common strategy to handle these excess zeros is to add a small number called pseudo-count (e.g., 1). Other strategies include using various probability models to model the excess zero counts. Although adding a pseudo-count is simple and widely used, as demonstrated in this paper, it is not ideal. On the other hand, methods that model excess zeros using a probability model often make an implicit assumption that all zeros can be explained by a common probability models. As described in this article, this is not always recommended as there are potentially three types/sources of zeros in a microbiome data. The purpose of this paper is to develop a simple methodology to identify and accomodate three different types of zeros and to test hypotheses regarding the relative abundance of taxa in two or more experimental groups. Another major contribution of this paper is to perform constrained (directional or ordered) inference when there are more than two ordered experimental groups (e.g., subjects ordered by diet or age groups or environmental exposure groups). As far as we know this is the first paper that addresses such problems in the analysis of microbiome data. Results: Using extensive simulation studies, we demonstrate that the proposed methodology not only controls the false discovery rate at a desired level of significance while competing well in terms of power with DESeq2, a popular procedure derived from RNASeq literature. As expected, the method using pseudo-counts tends to be very conservative and the classical t-test that ignores the underlying simplex structure in the data has an inflated FDR.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 341 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 341 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 20%
Researcher 58 17%
Student > Master 56 16%
Student > Bachelor 29 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 39 11%
Unknown 72 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 84 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 64 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 23 7%
Environmental Science 19 6%
Computer Science 17 5%
Other 47 14%
Unknown 87 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,805,915
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#5,516
of 25,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,260
of 331,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#205
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,108 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 331,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 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.