4.7 Article

Libra: scalable k-mer-based tool for massive all-vs-all metagenome comparisons

期刊

GIGASCIENCE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giy165

关键词

metagenomics; Hadoop; k-mer; distance metrics; clustering

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1640775]
  2. Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC)
  3. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1640775] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Shotgun metagenomics provides powerful insights into microbial community biodiversity and function. Yet, inferences from metagenomic studies are often limited by dataset size and complexity and are restricted by the availability and completeness of existing databases. De novo comparative metagenomics enables the comparison of metagenomes based on their total genetic content. Results We developed a tool called Libra that performs an all-vs-all comparison of metagenomes for precise clustering based on their k-mer content. Libra uses a scalable Hadoop framework for massive metagenome comparisons, Cosine Similarity for calculating the distance using sequence composition and abundance while normalizing for sequencing depth, and a web-based implementation in iMicrobe (http://imicrobe.us) that uses the CyVerse advanced cyberinfrastructure to promote broad use of the tool by the scientific community. Conclusions A comparison of Libra to equivalent tools using both simulated and real metagenomic datasets, ranging from 80 million to 4.2 billion reads, reveals that methods commonly implemented to reduce compute time for large datasets, such as data reduction, read count normalization, and presence/absence distance metrics, greatly diminish the resolution of large-scale comparative analyses. In contrast, Libra uses all of the reads to calculate k-mer abundance in a Hadoop architecture that can scale to any size dataset to enable global-scale analyses and link microbial signatures to biological processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据