Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

meta BIT , an integrative and automated metagenomic pipeline for analysing microbial profiles from high‐throughput sequencing shotgun data

Louvel, Guillaume, Der Sarkissian, Clio, Hanghøj, Kristian, Orlando, Ludovic·2016·Molecular Ecology Resources

Abstract

Micro‐organisms account for most of the Earth's biodiversity and yet remain largely unknown. The complexity and diversity of microbial communities present in clinical and environmental samples can now be robustly investigated in record times and prices thanks to recent advances in high‐throughput DNA sequencing ( HTS ). Here, we develop meta BIT , an open‐source computational pipeline automatizing routine microbial profiling of shotgun HTS data. Customizable by the user at different stringency levels, it performs robust taxonomy‐based assignment and relative abundance calculation of microbial taxa, as well as cross‐sample statistical analyses of microbial diversity distributions. We demonstrate the versatility of meta BIT within a range of published HTS data sets sampled from the environment (soil and seawater) and the human body (skin and gut), but also from archaeological specimens. We present the diversity of outputs provided by the pipeline for the visualization of microbial profiles (barplots, heatmaps) and for their characterization and comparison (diversity indices, hierarchical clustering and principal coordinates analyses). We show that meta BIT allows an automatic, fast and user‐friendly profiling of the microbial DNA present in HTS shotgun data sets. The applications of meta BIT are vast, from monitoring of laboratory errors and contaminations, to the reconstruction of past and present microbiota, and the detection of candidate species, including pathogens.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1755-0998.12546

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is still no consensus on a gold-standard way for carrying out or reporting most ancient genomic analyses.

    “While some guidelines exist for the analysis of ancient genomic data, for example for mapping 162,181,183 or data authentication 56,57,329 , and automated tools embedding critical analytical procedures within open-source pipelines are available 187,188,241,242 , there is still no consensus on a”

    From Ancient DNA analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [242]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. 10.1038/ng.2536 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1038/nature10549 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0375 · DOI
  4. 10.1073/pnas.1424409112 · DOI
  5. 10.2307/1942268 · DOI
  6. 10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1126/science.1177486 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.2144/000113809 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1111/mec.12690 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.032 · DOI
  11. 10.1038/srep04245 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/mp.2014.93 · DOI
  13. 10.1126/science.1110591 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.mimet.2014.07.029 · DOI
  15. 10.1073/pnas.1215210110 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.02.021 · DOI
  17. 10.1126/science.1146971 · DOI
  18. 10.1073/pnas.0802315105 · DOI
  19. 10.1186/s12915-014-0069-1 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/nrmicro2537 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1038/ismej.2013.59 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/nature11234 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1038/nature11209 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.3201/eid1804.110888 · DOI
  25. 10.1038/ncomms7717 · DOI
  26. 10.1186/s12859-015-0686-x · DOI
  27. 10.1038/nmeth.1923 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1128/AEM.00335-09 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1073/pnas.1513696112 · DOI
  31. 10.1038/nrg2626 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1038/nature07446 · DOI
  33. 10.1186/1471-2105-12-385 · DOI
  34. 10.1038/nrg3935 · DOI
  35. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0383 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1038/nature08821 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1038/nature11450 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1093/nar/gks1219 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1038/nprot.2014.063 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1073/pnas.1416991111 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1186/s13104-016-1900-2 · DOI
  42. 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1038/msb.2013.22 · DOI
  44. 10.1371/journal.pone.0078575 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1038/srep11826 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1073/pnas.0605127103 · DOI
  48. 10.1126/science.1261359 · DOI
  49. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl117 · DOI
  50. 10.1038/nature11552 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1038/nature07540 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1038/ng.2906 · DOI · Paper page
  53. 10.1016/j.cub.2003.12.012 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1038/srep16498 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Louvel, G., Der Sarkissian, C., Hanghøj, K., & Orlando, L.
Affiliations
Centre for Geogenetics Natural History Museum of Denmark University of Copenhagen Øster Voldgade 5‐7 1350 Copenhagen K Denmark
Venue
Molecular Ecology Resources
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-22
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
1415-1427
ISSN
  • 1755-098X
  • 1755-0998
Cited by
42
References
6
Language
en
Funders
  • Natur og Univers, Det Frie Forskningsråd (4002‐00152B)
  • Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (DNRF94)

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