The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genome-reconstruction for eukaryotes from complex natural microbial communities
Open accessAbstract
Microbial eukaryotes are integral components of natural microbial communities, and their inclusion is critical for many ecosystem studies, yet the majority of published metagenome analyses ignore eukaryotes. In order to include eukaryotes in environmental studies, we propose a method to recover eukaryotic genomes from complex metagenomic samples. A key step for genome recovery is separation of eukaryotic and prokaryotic fragments. We developed a k -mer-based strategy, EukRep, for eukaryotic sequence identification and applied it to environmental samples to show that it enables genome recovery, genome completeness evaluation, and prediction of metabolic potential. We used this approach to test the effect of addition of organic carbon on a geyser-associated microbial community and detected a substantial change of the community metabolism, with selection against almost all candidate phyla bacteria and archaea and for eukaryotes. Near complete genomes were reconstructed for three fungi placed within the Eurotiomycetes and an arthropod. While carbon fixation and sulfur oxidation were important functions in the geyser community prior to carbon addition, the organic carbon-impacted community showed enrichment for secreted proteases, secreted lipases, cellulose targeting CAZymes, and methanol oxidation. We demonstrate the broader utility of EukRep by reconstructing and evaluating relatively high-quality fungal, protist, and rotifer genomes from complex environmental samples. This approach opens the way for cultivation-independent analyses of whole microbial communities.
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
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput
Edgar, R. C. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh340 · Cited by 44,662
RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies
Stamatakis, A. (2014) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 · Cited by 32,291
Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST
Edgar, R. C. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 · Cited by 20,826
BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs
Simão, F. A., Waterhouse, R. M., Ioannidis, P., Kriventseva, E. V., & Zdobnov, E. M. (2015) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351 · Cited by 13,344
Krogh, A., Larsson, B., von Heijne, G., & Sonnhammer, E. L. L. (2001) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315 · Cited by 12,654
Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees
Miller, M. A., Pfeiffer, W., & Schwartz, T. (2010) · 2010 Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE) · doi:10.1109/gce.2010.5676129 · Cited by 11,228
Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: update
Wheeler, D. L. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh073 · Cited by 10,641
SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions
Petersen, T. N., Brunak, S., von Heijne, G., & Nielsen, H. (2011) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1701 · Cited by 8,847
UniProt: the Universal Protein knowledgebase
Apweiler, R. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh131 · Cited by 7,498
Cited by
Burki, F., Roger, A. J., Brown, M. W., & Simpson, A. G. B. (2020) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.008 · Cited by 913
Major New Microbial Groups Expand Diversity and Alter our Understanding of the Tree of Life
Castelle, C. J., & Banfield, J. F. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.016 · Cited by 595
Self-citationPan-cancer analyses reveal cancer-type-specific fungal ecologies and bacteriome interactions
Narunsky-Haziza, L., Sepich-Poore, G. D., Livyatan, I., Asraf, O., Martino, C., Nejman, D., Gavert, N., Stajich, J. E., Amit, G., González, A., et al. (2022) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.09.005 · Cited by 538
Accurate and complete genomes from metagenomes
Chen, L.-X., Anantharaman, K., Shaiber, A., Eren, A. M., & Banfield, J. F. (2020) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.258640.119 · Cited by 401
Self-citationLevy Karin, E., Mirdita, M., & Söding, J. (2020) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00808-x · Cited by 299
“We retained 1,351,204 contigs of at least 5kbp in length that were classified as 262 potentially eukaryotic by EukRep [27].”
MethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- West, P. T., Probst, A. J., Grigoriev, I. V., Thomas, B. C., & Banfield, J. F.
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2018-03-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 569-580
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-5469
- OpenAlex
- W2950310673
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 79
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genome-reconstruction for eukaryotes from complex natural microbial communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.228429.117
- The paper
- West, P. T., Probst, A. J., Grigoriev, I. V., Thomas, B. C., & Banfield, J. F. (2018). Genome-reconstruction for eukaryotes from complex natural microbial communities. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.228429.117
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.