Cited by 4,521Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments

Open access
Wood, Derrick E, Salzberg, Steven L·2014·Genome Biology

Abstract

Kraken is an ultrafast and highly accurate program for assigning taxonomic labels to metagenomic DNA sequences. Previous programs designed for this task have been relatively slow and computationally expensive, forcing researchers to use faster abundance estimation programs, which only classify small subsets of metagenomic data. Using exact alignment of k-mers, Kraken achieves classification accuracy comparable to the fastest BLAST program. In its fastest mode, Kraken classifies 100 base pair reads at a rate of over 4.1 million reads per minute, 909 times faster than Megablast and 11 times faster than the abundance estimation program MetaPhlAn. Kraken is available at http://ccb.jhu.edu/software/kraken/.

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 · 10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r46

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Customized bioinformatics pipelines for clinical mNGS data still require highly trained programming staff to develop, validate and maintain for clinical use.

    “Thus, customized bioinformatics pipelines for analysis of clinical mNGS data56,109–111 still require highly trained programming staff to develop, validate and maintain the pipeline for clinical use.”

    From Clinical metagenomics (2019) · cites this paper as [111]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wood, D. E., & Salzberg, S. L.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Wood, Derrick E
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2014-03-03
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
R46-R46
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2159954944
Cited by
4,521
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 298 · 2025: 453 · 2024: 479 · 2023: 449 · 2022: 433 · 2021: 572 · 2020: 550 · 2019: 440 · 2018: 337 · 2017: 227 · 2016: 166 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 28
FWCI
68.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006677)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM083873)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
metagenomic sequence classification, taxonomic classification, metagenomics, BLAST comparison, Kraken
MeSH terms
Archaea, Bacteria, Classification, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Metagenome, Metagenomics

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