Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 717

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

DECIPHER, a Search-Based Approach to Chimera Identification for 16S rRNA Sequences

Open access
Wright, Erik S., Yilmaz, L. Safak, Noguera, Daniel R.·2012·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

DECIPHER is a new method for finding 16S rRNA chimeric sequences by the use of a search-based approach. The method is based upon detecting short fragments that are uncommon in the phylogenetic group where a query sequence is classified but frequently found in another phylogenetic group. The algorithm was calibrated for full sequences (fs_DECIPHER) and short sequences (ss_DECIPHER) and benchmarked against WigeoN (Pintail), ChimeraSlayer, and Uchime using artificially generated chimeras. Overall, ss_DECIPHER and Uchime provided the highest chimera detection for sequences 100 to 600 nucleotides long (79% and 81%, respectively), but Uchime's performance deteriorated for longer sequences, while ss_DECIPHER maintained a high detection rate (89%). Both methods had low false-positive rates (1.3% and 1.6%). The more conservative fs_DECIPHER, benchmarked only for sequences longer than 600 nucleotides, had an overall detection rate lower than that of ss_DECIPHER (75%) but higher than those of the other programs. In addition, fs_DECIPHER had the lowest false-positive rate among all the benchmarked programs (<0.20%). DECIPHER was outperformed only by ChimeraSlayer and Uchime when chimeras were formed from closely related parents (less than 10% divergence). Given the differences in the programs, it was possible to detect over 89% of all chimeras with just the combination of ss_DECIPHER and Uchime. Using fs_DECIPHER, we detected between 1% and 2% additional chimeras in the RDP, SILVA, and Greengenes databases from which chimeras had already been removed with Pintail or Bellerophon. DECIPHER was implemented in the R programming language and is directly accessible through a webpage or by downloading the program as an R package ( http://DECIPHER.cee.wisc.edu ).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.06516-11

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 717

Metadata

Authors
Wright, E. S., Yilmaz, L. S., & Noguera, D. R.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2012-02
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
717-725
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2113606293
Cited by
717
References
3
FWCI
14.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.