Back

Kun-peng: an ultra-memory-efficient, fast, and accurate pan-domain taxonomic classifier for all

Chen, Q.; Zhang, B.; Peng, C.; Huang, J.; Shen, X.; Jiang, C.

2024-12-22 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.12.19.629356 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Comprehensive metagenomic sequence classification of diverse environmental samples faces significant computing memory challenges due to exponentially expanding genome databases. Here, we present Kun-peng, featuring a unique ordered 4GB block database design for ultra-efficient resource management, faster processing, and higher accuracy. When benchmarked on mock communities (Amos HiLo, Mixed, and NIST) against Kraken2, Centrifuge, and Sylph. Kun-peng matched Sylph, achieving the highest precision and lowest false-positive rates while demonstrating superior time and memory efficiency among all tested tools. Furthermore, Kun-pengs efficient database architecture enables the practical utilization of large-scale reference databases that were previously computationally prohibitive. In comprehensive testing across 586 air, water, soil, and human metagenomic samples using an expansive pan-domain database (204,477 genomes, 4.3TB), Kun-peng classified 69.78-94.29% of reads, achieving 38-43% higher classification rates than Kraken2 with the standard database. Unexpectedly, Sylph failed to classify any reads in air samples and left > 99.85% of reads unclassified in water and soil samples. In terms of computational efficiency, Kun-peng processed each sample in 0.2[~]11.2 minutes using only 4.0[~]35.4GB peak memory. Remarkably, these processing times were comparable to Kraken2 using the standard database (81GB, 5% of the pan-domain database). Memory-wise, Kun-peng required only 35.4GB peak memory with the pan-domain database, representing a 473-fold reduction compared to Kraken2. When compared to Sylph, Kun-peng processes samples up to 46.3 times faster while using up to 20.6 times less memory. Overall, Kun-peng offers an ultra-memory-efficient, fast, and accurate solution for pan-domain metagenomic classifications.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
18.1%
2
Nature Biotechnology
172 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.7%
3
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 22%
7.7%
4
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.6%
5
iMeta
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
6
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.0%
8
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.0%
9
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
10
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
11
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
12
Microbiome
154 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
13
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
14
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
15
mSystems
394 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
16
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
17
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.3%
18
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 27%
1.1%
20
Nature Computational Science
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
Molecular Ecology Resources
171 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.8%
24
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
25
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%