Back

A comparison of approaches to scaffolding multiple regions along the 16S rRNA gene for improved resolution

Debelius, J. W.; Robeson, M.; Hugerth, L. W.; Boulund, F.; Ye, W.; Engstrand, L.

2021-03-23 bioinformatics
10.1101/2021.03.23.436606 bioRxiv
Show abstract

MotivationFull length, high resolution 16s rRNA marker gene sequencing has been challenging historically. Short amplicons provide high accuracy reads with widely available equipment, at the cost of taxonomic resolution. One recent proposal has been to reconstruct multiple amplicons along the full-length marker gene, however no barcode-free computationally tractable approach for this is available. To address this gap, we present Sidle (SMURF Implementation Done to acceLerate Efficiency), an implementation of the Short MUltiple Reads Framework algorithm with a novel tree building approach to reconstruct rRNA genes from individually amplified regions. ResultsUsing simulated and real data, we compared Sidle to two other approaches of leveraging multiple gene region data. We found that Sidle had the least bias in non-phylogenetic alpha diversity, feature-based measures of beta diversity, and the reconstruction of individual clades. With a curated database, Sidle also provided the most precise species-level resolution. Availability and ImplementationSidle is available under a BSD 3 license from https://github.com/jwdebelius/q2-sidle

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.4%
Similar papers in this journal
2
mSystems
● 394 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
9.4%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Microbial Genomics
● 225 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.7%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Microbiome
○ 154 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.7%
Similar papers in this journal
5
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.1%
Similar papers in this journal
6
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.3%
7
Microbiology Spectrum
● 469 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
8
Molecular Ecology Resources
○ 171 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
9
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.9%
10
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.4%
11
Environmental Microbiome
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
12
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.1%
13
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.3%
14
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
15
mSphere
● 302 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
16
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
17
Frontiers in Microbiology
○ 427 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
18
ISME Communications
◐ 120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
20
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.1%
21
BMC Microbiology
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Microorganisms
○ 106 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 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.