167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36852763)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Assessing taxonomic metagenome profilers with OPAL.
Meyer F; Bremges A; Belmann P; Janssen S; McHardy AC; Koslicki D
Genome Biol; 2019 Mar; 20(1):51. PubMed ID: 30832730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. CAMISIM: simulating metagenomes and microbial communities.
Fritz A; Hofmann P; Majda S; Dahms E; Dröge J; Fiedler J; Lesker TR; Belmann P; DeMaere MZ; Darling AE; Sczyrba A; Bremges A; McHardy AC
Microbiome; 2019 Feb; 7(1):17. PubMed ID: 30736849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Tamock: simulation of habitat-specific benchmark data in metagenomics.
Gerner SM; Graf AB; Rattei T
BMC Bioinformatics; 2021 May; 22(1):227. PubMed ID: 33932979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Tutorial: assessing metagenomics software with the CAMI benchmarking toolkit.
Meyer F; Lesker TR; Koslicki D; Fritz A; Gurevich A; Darling AE; Sczyrba A; Bremges A; McHardy AC
Nat Protoc; 2021 Apr; 16(4):1785-1801. PubMed ID: 33649565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. MetaMeta: integrating metagenome analysis tools to improve taxonomic profiling.
Piro VC; Matschkowski M; Renard BY
Microbiome; 2017 Aug; 5(1):101. PubMed ID: 28807044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integrating taxonomic signals from MAGs and contigs improves read annotation and taxonomic profiling of metagenomes.
Hauptfeld E; Pappas N; van Iwaarden S; Snoek BL; Aldas-Vargas A; Dutilh BE; von Meijenfeldt FAB
Nat Commun; 2024 Apr; 15(1):3373. PubMed ID: 38643272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluating metagenomics tools for genome binning with real metagenomic datasets and CAMI datasets.
Yue Y; Huang H; Qi Z; Dou HM; Liu XY; Han TF; Chen Y; Song XJ; Zhang YH; Tu J
BMC Bioinformatics; 2020 Jul; 21(1):334. PubMed ID: 32723290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. NG-meta-profiler: fast processing of metagenomes using NGLess, a domain-specific language.
Coelho LP; Alves R; Monteiro P; Huerta-Cepas J; Freitas AT; Bork P
Microbiome; 2019 Jun; 7(1):84. PubMed ID: 31159881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Qmatey: an automated pipeline for fast exact matching-based alignment and strain-level taxonomic binning and profiling of metagenomes.
Adams AK; Kristy BD; Gorman M; Balint-Kurti P; Yencho GC; Olukolu BA
Brief Bioinform; 2023 Sep; 24(6):. PubMed ID: 37824740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
