184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33986544)
1. Challenges in benchmarking metagenomic profilers.
Sun Z; Huang S; Zhang M; Zhu Q; Haiminen N; Carrieri AP; Vázquez-Baeza Y; Parida L; Kim HC; Knight R; Liu YY
Nat Methods; 2021 Jun; 18(6):618-626. PubMed ID: 33986544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. TAMPA: interpretable analysis and visualization of metagenomics-based taxon abundance profiles.
Sarwal V; Brito J; Mangul S; Koslicki D
Gigascience; 2022 Dec; 12():. PubMed ID: 36852763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Crowdsourced benchmarking of taxonomic metagenome profilers: lessons learned from the sbv IMPROVER Microbiomics challenge.
Poussin C; Khachatryan L; Sierro N; Narsapuram VK; Meyer F; Kaikala V; Chawla V; Muppirala U; Kumar S; Belcastro V; Battey JND; Scotti E; Boué S; McHardy AC; Peitsch MC; Ivanov NV; Hoeng J
BMC Genomics; 2022 Aug; 23(1):624. PubMed ID: 36042406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Removal of false positives in metagenomics-based taxonomy profiling via targeting Type IIB restriction sites.
Sun Z; Liu J; Zhang M; Wang T; Huang S; Weiss ST; Liu YY
Nat Commun; 2023 Sep; 14(1):5321. PubMed ID: 37658057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comprehensive benchmarking and ensemble approaches for metagenomic classifiers.
McIntyre ABR; Ounit R; Afshinnekoo E; Prill RJ; Hénaff E; Alexander N; Minot SS; Danko D; Foox J; Ahsanuddin S; Tighe S; Hasan NA; Subramanian P; Moffat K; Levy S; Lonardi S; Greenfield N; Colwell RR; Rosen GL; Mason CE
Genome Biol; 2017 Sep; 18(1):182. PubMed ID: 28934964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of taxonomic classification and profiling methods for long-read shotgun metagenomic sequencing datasets.
Portik DM; Brown CT; Pierce-Ward NT
BMC Bioinformatics; 2022 Dec; 23(1):541. PubMed ID: 36513983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Selection of Appropriate Metagenome Taxonomic Classifiers for Ancient Microbiome Research.
Velsko IM; Frantz LAF; Herbig A; Larson G; Warinner C
mSystems; 2018; 3(4):. PubMed ID: 30035235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Benchmarking Metagenomics Tools for Taxonomic Classification.
Ye SH; Siddle KJ; Park DJ; Sabeti PC
Cell; 2019 Aug; 178(4):779-794. PubMed ID: 31398336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Benchmarking Metagenomic Classifiers on Simulated Ancient and Modern Metagenomic Data.
Pusadkar V; Azad RK
Microorganisms; 2023 Oct; 11(10):. PubMed ID: 37894136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. MiCoP: microbial community profiling method for detecting viral and fungal organisms in metagenomic samples.
LaPierre N; Mangul S; Alser M; Mandric I; Wu NC; Koslicki D; Eskin E
BMC Genomics; 2019 Jun; 20(Suppl 5):423. PubMed ID: 31167634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of computational methods for human microbiome analysis using simulated data.
Miossec MJ; Valenzuela SL; Pérez-Losada M; Johnson WE; Crandall KA; Castro-Nallar E
PeerJ; 2020; 8():e9688. PubMed ID: 32864214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cultivation-independent genomes greatly expand taxonomic-profiling capabilities of mOTUs across various environments.
Ruscheweyh HJ; Milanese A; Paoli L; Karcher N; Clayssen Q; Keller MI; Wirbel J; Bork P; Mende DR; Zeller G; Sunagawa S
Microbiome; 2022 Dec; 10(1):212. PubMed ID: 36464731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Benchmarking microbiome transformations favors experimental quantitative approaches to address compositionality and sampling depth biases.
Lloréns-Rico V; Vieira-Silva S; Gonçalves PJ; Falony G; Raes J
Nat Commun; 2021 Jun; 12(1):3562. PubMed ID: 34117246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Microbial abundance, activity and population genomic profiling with mOTUs2.
Milanese A; Mende DR; Paoli L; Salazar G; Ruscheweyh HJ; Cuenca M; Hingamp P; Alves R; Costea PI; Coelho LP; Schmidt TSB; Almeida A; Mitchell AL; Finn RD; Huerta-Cepas J; Bork P; Zeller G; Sunagawa S
Nat Commun; 2019 Mar; 10(1):1014. PubMed ID: 30833550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. KMCP: accurate metagenomic profiling of both prokaryotic and viral populations by pseudo-mapping.
Shen W; Xiang H; Huang T; Tang H; Peng M; Cai D; Hu P; Ren H
Bioinformatics; 2023 Jan; 39(1):. PubMed ID: 36579886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. LEMMI: a continuous benchmarking platform for metagenomics classifiers.
Seppey M; Manni M; Zdobnov EM
Genome Res; 2020 Aug; 30(8):1208-1216. PubMed ID: 32616517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accurate genome relative abundance estimation based on shotgun metagenomic reads.
Xia LC; Cram JA; Chen T; Fuhrman JA; Sun F
PLoS One; 2011; 6(12):e27992. PubMed ID: 22162995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Metagenomics Bioinformatic Pipeline.
Garfias-Gallegos D; Zirión-Martínez C; Bustos-Díaz ED; Arellano-Fernández TV; Lovaco-Flores JA; Espinosa-Jaime A; Avelar-Rivas JA; Sélem-Mójica N
Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2512():153-179. PubMed ID: 35818005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A review of methods and databases for metagenomic classification and assembly.
Breitwieser FP; Lu J; Salzberg SL
Brief Bioinform; 2019 Jul; 20(4):1125-1136. PubMed ID: 29028872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Large-scale benchmarking reveals false discoveries and count transformation sensitivity in 16S rRNA gene amplicon data analysis methods used in microbiome studies.
Thorsen J; Brejnrod A; Mortensen M; Rasmussen MA; Stokholm J; Al-Soud WA; Sørensen S; Bisgaard H; Waage J
Microbiome; 2016 Nov; 4(1):62. PubMed ID: 27884206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
