Back

Estimating the quality of eukaryotic genomes recovered from metagenomic analysis

Saary, P.; Mitchell, A. L.; Finn, R. D.

2020-01-20 bioinformatics
10.1101/2019.12.19.882753 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Eukaryotes make up a large fraction of microbial biodiversity. However, the field of metagenomics has been heavily biased towards the study of just the prokaryotic fraction. This focus has driven the necessary methodological developments to enable the recovery of prokaryotic genomes from metagenomes, which has reliably yielded genomes from thousands of novel species. More recently, microbial eukaryotes have gained more attention, but there is yet to be a parallel explosion in the number of eukaryotic genomes recovered from metagenomic samples. One of the current deficiencies is the lack of a universally applicable and reliable tool for the estimation of eukaryote genome quality. To address this need, we have developed EukCC, a tool for estimating the quality of eukaryotic genomes based on the dynamic selection of single copy marker gene sets, with the aim of applying it to metagenomics datasets. We demonstrate that our method outperforms current genome quality estimators and have applied EukCC to datasets from two different biomes to enable the identification of novel genomes, including a eukaryote found on the human skin and a Bathycoccus species obtained from a marine sample.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
11.3%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Molecular Biology and Evolution
◐ 542 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
9.2%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 22%
7.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.2%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Genome Biology and Evolution
◐ 338 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
5.2%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.8%
7
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.8%
8
Microbial Genomics
● 225 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.8%
9
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
10
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.1%
11
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
12
Nature Biotechnology
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
13
Molecular Ecology Resources
○ 171 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.9%
14
mSystems
● 394 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.3%
15
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.3%
16
Peer Community Journal
● 281 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
17
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
18
BMC Biology
○ 265 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
19
Nature Methods
○ 385 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.6%
20
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.6%
21
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
22
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.6%
23
Microbiome
○ 154 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
24
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
25
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 33%
1.0%
26
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
27
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.8%
28
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.6%
29
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
◐ 351 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.