The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
iNAP: An integrated network analysis pipeline for microbiome studies
Open accessAbstract
Integrated network analysis pipeline (iNAP) is an online analysis pipeline for generating and analyzing comprehensive ecological networks in microbiome studies. It is implemented in two sections, that is, network construction and network analysis, and integrates many open‐access tools. Network construction contains multiple feasible alternatives, including correlation‐based approaches (Pearson's correlation and Spearman's rank correlation along with random matrix theory, and sparse correlations for compositional data) and conditional dependence‐based methods (extended local similarity analysis and sparse inverse covariance estimation for ecological association inference), while network analysis provides topological structures at different levels and the potential effects of environmental factors on network structures. Considering the full workflow, from microbiome data set to network result, iNAP contains the molecular ecological network analysis pipeline and interdomain ecological network analysis pipeline (IDENAP), which correspond to the intradomain and interdomain associations of microbial species at multiple taxonomic levels. Here, we describe the detailed workflow by taking IDENAP as an example and show the comprehensive steps to assist researchers to conduct the relevant analyses using their own data sets. Afterwards, some auxiliary tools facilitating the pipeline are introduced to effectively aid in the switch from local analysis to online operations. Therefore, iNAP, as an easy‐to‐use platform that provides multiple network‐associated tools and approaches, can enable researchers to better understand the organization of microbial communities. iNAP is available at http://mem.rcees.ac.cn:8081 with free registration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cytoscape: A software Environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks
Shannon, P., Markiel, A., Ozier, O., Baliga, N. S., Wang, J. T., Ramage, D., Amin, N., Schwikowski, B., & Ideker, T. (2003) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1239303 · Cited by 51,888
Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937 · Cited by 11,675
Sparse and Compositionally Robust Inference of Microbial Ecological Networks
Kurtz, Z. D., Müller, C. L., Miraldi, E. R., Littman, D. R., Blaser, M. J., & Bonneau, R. A. (2015) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004226 · Cited by 1,799
Cited by
Wen, T., Xie, P., Yang, S., Niu, G., Liu, X., Ding, Z., Xue, C., Liu, Y., Shen, Q., & Yuan, J. (2022) · iMeta · doi:10.1002/imt2.32 · Cited by 478
Tang, Z., Vogel, T. M., Wang, Q., Wei, C., Ali, M., & Song, X. (2024) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.133217 · Cited by 71
Microbiome modeling: a beginner's guide
Lange, E., Kranert, L., Krüger, J., Benndorf, D., & Heyer, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1368377 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Feng, K., Peng, X., Zhang, Z., Gu, S., He, Q., Shen, W., Wang, Z., Wang, D., Hu, Q., Li, Y., Wang, S., & Deng, Y.
- Venue
- iMeta
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-03-16
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e13-e13
- ISSN
- 2770-596X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4220704002
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 44.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.