These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35532211)

  • 1. Approximation of a Microbiome Composition Shift by a Change in a Single Balance Between Two Groups of Taxa.
    Odintsova VE; Klimenko NS; Tyakht AV
    mSystems; 2022 Jun; 7(3):e0015522. PubMed ID: 35532211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Compositional data analysis of the microbiome: fundamentals, tools, and challenges.
    Tsilimigras MC; Fodor AA
    Ann Epidemiol; 2016 May; 26(5):330-5. PubMed ID: 27255738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison Between Full-Length 16S rRNA Metabarcoding and Whole Metagenome Sequencing Suggests the Use of Either Is Suitable for Large-Scale Microbiome Studies.
    Rubiola S; Macori G; Civera T; Fanning S; Mitchell M; Chiesa F
    Foodborne Pathog Dis; 2022 Jul; 19(7):495-504. PubMed ID: 35819265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Systematic evaluation of supervised machine learning for sample origin prediction using metagenomic sequencing data.
    Chen JC; Tyler AD
    Biol Direct; 2020 Dec; 15(1):29. PubMed ID: 33302990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Balances: a New Perspective for Microbiome Analysis.
    Rivera-Pinto J; Egozcue JJ; Pawlowsky-Glahn V; Paredes R; Noguera-Julian M; Calle ML
    mSystems; 2018; 3(4):. PubMed ID: 30035234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. coda4microbiome: compositional data analysis for microbiome cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
    Calle ML; Pujolassos M; Susin A
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2023 Mar; 24(1):82. PubMed ID: 36879227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The standardisation of the approach to metagenomic human gut analysis: from sample collection to microbiome profiling.
    Szóstak N; Szymanek A; Havránek J; Tomela K; Rakoczy M; Samelak-Czajka A; Schmidt M; Figlerowicz M; Majta J; Milanowska-Zabel K; Handschuh L; Philips A
    Sci Rep; 2022 May; 12(1):8470. PubMed ID: 35589762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. DisBalance: a platform to automatically build balance-based disease prediction models and discover microbial biomarkers from microbiome data.
    Yang F; Zou Q
    Brief Bioinform; 2021 Sep; 22(5):. PubMed ID: 33834198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Species classifier choice is a key consideration when analysing low-complexity food microbiome data.
    Walsh AM; Crispie F; O'Sullivan O; Finnegan L; Claesson MJ; Cotter PD
    Microbiome; 2018 Mar; 6(1):50. PubMed ID: 29554948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of
    Hugerth LW; Pereira M; Zha Y; Seifert M; Kaldhusdal V; Boulund F; Krog MC; Bashir Z; Hamsten M; Fransson E; Svarre-Nielsen H; Schuppe-Koistinen I; Engstrand L
    mSphere; 2020 Nov; 5(6):. PubMed ID: 33208514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. CCLasso: correlation inference for compositional data through Lasso.
    Fang H; Huang C; Zhao H; Deng M
    Bioinformatics; 2015 Oct; 31(19):3172-80. PubMed ID: 26048598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. LOCOM: A logistic regression model for testing differential abundance in compositional microbiome data with false discovery rate control.
    Hu Y; Satten GA; Hu YJ
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Jul; 119(30):e2122788119. PubMed ID: 35867822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis and correction of compositional bias in sparse sequencing count data.
    Kumar MS; Slud EV; Okrah K; Hicks SC; Hannenhalli S; Corrada Bravo H
    BMC Genomics; 2018 Nov; 19(1):799. PubMed ID: 30400812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of statistical methods from single cell, bulk RNA-seq, and metagenomics applied to microbiome data.
    Calgaro M; Romualdi C; Waldron L; Risso D; Vitulo N
    Genome Biol; 2020 Aug; 21(1):191. PubMed ID: 32746888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Principal microbial groups: compositional alternative to phylogenetic grouping of microbiome data.
    Boyraz A; Pawlowsky-Glahn V; Egozcue JJ; Acar AC
    Brief Bioinform; 2022 Sep; 23(5):. PubMed ID: 36007229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Quantitative Assessment of Shotgun Metagenomics and 16S rDNA Amplicon Sequencing in the Study of Human Gut Microbiome.
    Laudadio I; Fulci V; Palone F; Stronati L; Cucchiara S; Carissimi C
    OMICS; 2018 Apr; 22(4):248-254. PubMed ID: 29652573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Compositional Analysis of the Human Microbiome in Cancer Research.
    Morales E; Chen J; Greathouse KL
    Methods Mol Biol; 2019; 1928():299-335. PubMed ID: 30725462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. MinION™ nanopore sequencing of environmental metagenomes: a synthetic approach.
    Brown BL; Watson M; Minot SS; Rivera MC; Franklin RB
    Gigascience; 2017 Mar; 6(3):1-10. PubMed ID: 28327976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Identification of city specific important bacterial signature for the MetaSUB CAMDA challenge microbiome data.
    Walker AR; Datta S
    Biol Direct; 2019 Jul; 14(1):11. PubMed ID: 31340852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An inter-laboratory study to investigate the impact of the bioinformatics component on microbiome analysis using mock communities.
    O'Sullivan DM; Doyle RM; Temisak S; Redshaw N; Whale AS; Logan G; Huang J; Fischer N; Amos GCA; Preston MD; Marchesi JR; Wagner J; Parkhill J; Motro Y; Denise H; Finn RD; Harris KA; Kay GL; O'Grady J; Ransom-Jones E; Wu H; Laing E; Studholme DJ; Benavente ED; Phelan J; Clark TG; Moran-Gilad J; Huggett JF
    Sci Rep; 2021 May; 11(1):10590. PubMed ID: 34012005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.