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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
MetaPhlAn2 for enhanced metagenomic taxonomic profiling
Truong, D. T., Franzosa, E. A., Tickle, T. L., Scholz, M., Weingart, G., Pasolli, E., Tett, A., Huttenhower, C., & Segata, N. (2015) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.3589 · Cited by 2,185
Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes
Segata, N., Waldron, L., Ballarini, A., Narasimhan, V., Jousson, O., & Huttenhower, C. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2066 · Cited by 1,776
mapDamage2.0: fast approximate Bayesian estimates of ancient DNA damage parameters
Jónsson, H., Ginolhac, A., Schubert, M., Johnson, P. L. F., & Orlando, L. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt193 · Cited by 1,669
Self-citationAncient human genome sequence of an extinct Palaeo-Eskimo
Rasmussen, M., Li, Y., Lindgreen, S., Pedersen, J. S., Albrechtsen, A., Moltke, I., Metspalu, M., Metspalu, E., Kivisild, T., Gupta, R., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08835 · Cited by 849
Self-citationRecalibrating equus evolution using the genome sequence of an early middle pleistocene horse
Orlando, L., Ginolhac, A., Zhang, G., Froese, D., Albrechtsen, A., Stiller, M., Schubert, M., Cappellini, E., Petersen, B., Moltke, I., et al. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12323 · Cited by 841
Self-citationAn aboriginal Australian genome reveals separate human dispersals into Asia
Rasmussen, M., Guo, X., Wang, Y., Lohmueller, K. E., Rasmussen, S., Albrechtsen, A., Skotte, L., Lindgreen, S., Metspalu, M., Jombart, T., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1211177 · Cited by 787
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 54
- 10.1038/ng.2536 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature10549 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rstb.2013.0375 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1424409112 · DOI
- 10.2307/1942268 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12866-015-0351-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.1177486 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2144/000113809 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/mec.12690 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.032 · DOI
- 10.1038/srep04245 · DOI
- 10.1038/mp.2014.93 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1110591 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.mimet.2014.07.029 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1215210110 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.02.021 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1146971 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.0802315105 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12915-014-0069-1 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrmicro2537 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/ismej.2013.59 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature11234 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature11209 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3201/eid1804.110888 · DOI
- 10.1038/ncomms7717 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12859-015-0686-x · DOI
- 10.1038/nmeth.1923 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1128/AEM.00335-09 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.1513696112 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrg2626 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature07446 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2105-12-385 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrg3935 · DOI
- 10.1098/rstb.2013.0383 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature08821 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature11450 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/nar/gks1219 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nprot.2014.063 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.1416991111 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s13104-016-1900-2 · DOI
- 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/msb.2013.22 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0078575 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/srep11826 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.0605127103 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1261359 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl117 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature11552 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature07540 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/ng.2906 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cub.2003.12.012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/srep16498 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MetaWRAP—a flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis
Uritskiy, G. V., DiRuggiero, J., & Taylor, J. (2018) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0541-1 · Cited by 2,642
Orlando, L., Allaby, R., Skoglund, P., Der Sarkissian, C., Stockhammer, P. W., Ávila-Arcos, M. C., Fu, Q., Krause, J., Willerslev, E., Stone, A. C., et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-020-00011-0 · Cited by 411
Self-citation
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