Volume 10 Supplement 3
The oligonucleotide frequency derived error gradient and its application to the binning of metagenome fragments
© Saeed and Halgamuge; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
Published: 3 December 2009
The characterisation, or binning, of metagenome fragments is an important first step to further downstream analysis of microbial consortia. Here, we propose a one-dimensional signature, OFDEG, derived from the oligonucleotide frequency profile of a DNA sequence, and show that it is possible to obtain a meaningful phylogenetic signal for relatively short DNA sequences. The one-dimensional signal is essentially a compact representation of higher dimensional feature spaces of greater complexity and is intended to improve on the tetranucleotide frequency feature space preferred by current compositional binning methods.
We compare the fidelity of OFDEG against tetranucleotide frequency in both an unsupervised and semi-supervised setting on simulated metagenome benchmark data. Four tests were conducted using assembler output of Arachne and phrap, and for each, performance was evaluated on contigs which are greater than or equal to 8 kbp in length and contigs which are composed of at least 10 reads. Using both G-C content in conjunction with OFDEG gave an average accuracy of 96.75% (semi-supervised) and 95.19% (unsupervised), versus 94.25% (semi-supervised) and 82.35% (unsupervised) for tetranucleotide frequency.
We have presented an observation of an alternative characteristic of DNA sequences. The proposed feature representation has proven to be more beneficial than the existing tetranucleotide frequency space to the metagenome binning problem. We do note, however, that our observation of OFDEG deserves further anlaysis and investigation. Unsupervised clustering revealed OFDEG related features performed better than standard tetranucleotide frequency in representing a relevant organism specific signal. Further improvement in binning accuracy is given by semi-supervised classification using OFDEG. The emphasis on a feature-driven, bottom-up approach to the problem of binning reveals promising avenues for future development of techniques to characterise short environmental sequences without bias toward cultivable organisms.
Metagenomics is a relatively recent field of research, dealing primarily with the investigation of microbial consortia of uncultivable organisms. It has enabled the study of microbiota sampled directly from environmental niches, such as the ocean [1, 2], soil , hot springs , hydrothermal vents , polar ice caps  and hypersaline environments . In depth investigation of these consortia have given insight into microbial ecology , diversity , as well as archeal lineages . Not only is such knowledge valuable to the understanding of our biosphere, it has also facillatated advancement of biotechnology [11, 12], human physiology  and sequencing of contaminated samples of now extinct species [14, 15], to name a few. Prior to the metagenomics approach, we see that attempts at characterising microbial communities using pure clonal samples of constiuent organisms resulted in a low discovery rate of novel microbes .
Metagenomics is able to tackle this problem by means of direct sequencing of an environmental sample without the need for a pre-cloning step. This enables approximately 99% of Earth's undiscovered microbiota, which resist standard laboratory culturing techniques, to be sequenced and analysed. However, when an environmental sample is sequenced en masse, a fundamental computational challenge is introduced: the characterisation of sequenced reads with respect to their phylogenetic origin . Such in silico profiling of sequenced DNA is referred to as binning.
Binning is an important first step to further downstream analysis of a metagenome. Of particular interest in this preliminary stage of analysis is the taxonomic composition of the sample, and further, the association between sequenced DNA fragments and their parent organism. Many reported attempts at this analysis are founded on one of three key concepts: marker gene based assignment, sequence similarity assignments or sequence composition based assignments.
Taxonomic profiling using conserved marker genes
Through various stages of an organism's evolution changes take place in the composition its genome, permitting adaptation to changes in the environment, for example. Different locations in the genome experience distinct rates of change. Hyper-variant regions are particularly found in non-coding, inter-genic regions . This is because pronounced changes in genes that code for particular functions will degrade characteristic functionality of an organism. The exceptions to this are slowly evolving marker genes in the guise of non-coding ribsomal RNAs. These conserved marker genes have been fundamental to the study of microbial phylogeny . Prior to the discovery of such marker genes, phylogenetic analysis of microbes revealed the existence of only two primeval lineages. However, a founding study  highlighted the insuffciency of existing approaches to capture all extant lineages. It was this which lead to the establishment of three primary kingdoms or domains of Archea, Bacteria and Eucarya.
More recently, studies that adopt this approach have greatly contributed to our knowledge of the actual diversity of microorganisms [20–22]. Automatation of the phylotyping procedure for metagenomic DNA using 16S rRNA markers are also becoming more prevalent [23–27]. In  two fundamental questions are posed regarding the number of bacterial phylotypes that can co-exist and the way in which they are organised, and an attempt at addressing both has been through 16S rRNA sampling of a bacterioplankton assemblage. As  argues, these two pieces of information are critical to the understanding of function, population biology and biogeography. Further,  uses 16S rRNA libraries to compare the phylogenetic distance between various microbial communities.
On the one hand where such marker genes are providing valuable insight into the composition of microbial assemblages, they carry with them the inability to characterise the majority of sequenced reads. It has been reported that these marker genes appear infrequently in a typical set of sequenced reads, despite the high density of open reading frames found in microbial genomes . Consequently, only a fraction of reads can be assigned.
Read length is also a factor to consider when attempting classification using marker genes. 16S rRNA gene are generally 1,500 base pairs in length and as such will be distributed over multiple reads of current state-of-the-art sequencing technologies. Complications then arise in taxonomic profiling when marker genes are assumed to be partially located on sequenced reads. However, this is not so much a critical issue for future sequencing platforms, as whole-molecule sequencing is designed to deliver sequenced reads that are in the order of length of the marker genes . Marker genes will continue to be used for taxonomic characterisation of a metagenome, as it is arguably the most accurate .
Characterisation based on similarity to known sequences
A viable alternative to the use of conserved regions of genomic DNA is the use of previously sequenced homologs as a basis for phylogenetic characterisation. Databases of complete genomes and information on genes, protein families and so forth have experienced exponential growth, especially over the last few decades, attributed in part to advances made by marker gene based profiling of microbial organisms. Tapping into this resource pool has been the focus of a variety of methods. For instance, early similarity methods used a simple BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) search against databases of previously sequenced complete genomes to assign short fragments to a particular taxonomic rank, using homologs  or orthologs [33, 34]. Currently, the length of reads is an important challenge  and methods that are able to assign short stretches of DNA are required, particularly where next generation sequencing platforms are used to sequence metagenomes. In fact, claims have even been made to a solution for phlyotyping a metagenome irrespective of the sequencing technique used .
The strength of these methods relies on the length of sequences able to be assigned. We see that recent attempts achieve accurate classification of reads down to 80 base pairs in length . Despite this, for real metagenomic samples, fewer than 10% of the reads could be identified using the Pfam domain and protein families , which is suggestive of poor database coverage over extant microorganisms. Of this 10%, only a fraction could be assigned to a particular lineage.
In general, a bottleneck exists in conducting the initial search against various databases, often necessitating the use of a large number of CPU hours on high performance computing solutions. As these databases continue to grow at their current rate, this bottle-neck will increasingly impose significant delays in any metagenomic project, perhaps with minimal pay-off for the classification of novel organisms. However, by adopting these strategies we are fundamentally relying on the assumption that novel microbes sampled from the environment will be represented in existing databases. With an abundance of microbial diversity yet to be discovered, it is counter-intuitive to found decisions on previously discovered genomes and protein sequences , particularly when the majority of these are derived from culture-dependant techniques, while an estimated 99% of novel microbes are yet to be discovered can not be cultured using current in vivo techniques .
Characterisation based on sequence composition
The composition of a DNA sequence is defined by the non-random ordering of its base-pairs, in terms of the four atomic nucleotides. Taking into account that there are specific causes and evolutionary factors for the variation in base composition of genomic DNA, methods have been developed to extract common patterns between organisms at varying levels of taxonomic resolution, such that sequences of similar species are able to be grouped. The general trend with compositional approaches has been the modification of machine learning methods to work around existing compositional feature spaces. Deterministic pattern spaces such as oligonucleotide frequency counts are among the more dominant of choices among compositional binning methods. These operate on the assumption that the relative abundance of certain words - also referred to as oligos, i.e. ACGTA is a 5-mer oligo - primarily dictate the association of one sequence to another. This is particularly useful for observing codon usage biases, for example. In fact, compositional biases, particularly in the case of tetranucleotide (4-mer) frequencies, is hypothesised to have strong biological significance in terms of phylogeny [40–42]. It is further argued that the larger number of permutations possible in tetranucleotide frequencies allows greater authority to discriminate between genomic fragments from different genomes. This argument holds if the conditions of low intragenomic variation and large sequence length (in this case a 40 kb  fosmid sized vector is used) hold. Due to the large number of combinations of oligos possible, tetranucleotide frequency has been reported to have greater discriminatory power than the G-C content of a sequence, for instance . Clustering tetranucleotide frequencies using fixed-size Self-Organising Maps (SOMs) has been shown to be possible . However, the imposition of a fixed size SOM has been attributed to feature maps that do not faithfully represent the input data, and as such the Growing Self-Organising Map has been used to alleviate this flaw [44–46].
In the context of current next generation sequencing technologies, we find that reads are as short as 80-100 base pairs. In light of this, methods that operate on nucleotide frequency alone are at a disadvantage, as a signal strong enough to make inferences on phylogenetic origin of a sequence requires long stretches of DNA. It has been shown that 40,000 bp is an acceptable sequence length to make accurate predictions , yet it has also been shown that sequences as short as 1,000 bp can be classified . As yet, the 1,000 bp barrier - as it has been colloquially termed in the literature - is still an open challenge. To counteract this limitation, methods that adopt nucleotide frequencies as a means of sequence representation typically operate on assembled contigs. However, for complex communities the required amount of coverage for modest assembly translates to a substantial sequencing requirement. The feasibility, therefore, for current composition based methods looks to be limited to microbial consortia with minimal to moderate diversity. Further, these methods compensate for weak phylogenetic signals by consolidating information from other sources, such as external databases. Methods have also used training data from potential homologs from public databases to construct a representative signal for a particular clade . In the same study it is also shown that it is possible to generate training data directly from the metagenome itself, but it is argued that at least 100 kbp of data is required to construct an accurate model for a particular organism at a particular taxonomic rank.
The literature suggests that significant advances in compositional approaches to the binning problem have primarily looked at the issue of representing the composition of a sequence, rather than refining machine learning methods that operate in a sub-par feature space. Such is the case with the succession of G-C content by tetranucleotide frequencies [42, 47], for example. There is much that can be unveiled when patterns are extracted from DNA sequences, and since compositional methods are generally database-independent they are not susceptible to cloning biases observed in similarity-based methods. It is, however, a matter of knowing what patterns to extract and how best to extract them. Here we propose the use of the oligonucleotide frequency derived error gradient (OFDEG) as a feature space for the characterisation of DNA sequences from isloate organisms. The proposed feature space relies on the concept of oligonucleotide frequency profiles and their demonstrated ability to characterise genomic DNA.
Results and discussion
Evaluation on simulated metagenomic data sets
Data set description
Recently published metagenomic benchmark data sets  have been selected to evaluate the binning performance using our proposed DNA sequence representation. The benchmarks were formed using real DNA sequences of 113 isolate microbial genomes, sequenced at DOE Joint Genome Institute. The dominant strain in the simLC set is given a coverage of approximately 5.19× and just over 27 Mbp in total sequence length. The dominant strain is anked by 115 lower abundance strains, with coverage less than 1.2×. SimMC introduces three dominant strains which are represented with coverages ranging from 3.48× to 2.77×. Characteristic of agricultural soil, the simHC data set contains no dominant strains, and has poor coverage. The highest organism coverage in this data set is at an estimated 0.53×.
As previously described, the simulated metagenome data contains three data sets designed to represent three microbial communities of varying degrees of complexity. Here we present the analysis of binning performance on the medium complexity simMC data set, as this serves as a basis for comparison against current compositional binning techniques. Similar to , we conduct two tests to evaluate the quality of binning using OFDEG. The first takes only contigs which are greater than 8,000 bp in length - as these were deemed to have a minimal degree of chimerism. The second takes major contigs, which are those that are assembled using at least 10 reads. We use both the assembler output of Arachne  and phrap for evaluation, where phrap produces shorter contigs but is deemed more reliable . Contigs generated by Jazz were excluded from the analysis . Similarly, for the purposes of comparison we restrict ourselves to the taxonomic rank of order, using NCBI's taxonomy definition. For all tests conducted, OFDEG values were computed on the basis of a 4-mer OF profile for comparison against tetranucleotide frequency (TF) recommended by . The sampling depth was set to 20 and a step size of 10% of the sequence length was used. Each OFDEG value for a sequence is an average over 5 - determined empirically - subsequences which were truncated to the length of the shortest contig for each test, given the criteria of selecting contigs as defined above. All the OFDEG values computed used 80% of the sequence length. In an attempt to increase the discriminatory power of OFDEG for sequence separation, we also consider the effect of OFDEG in conjunction with G-C content as it has been used previously to successfully characterise organisms and maintains the low dimensionality of the proposed feature space.
Measuring the accuracy
Accuracy is measured by how well a particular organism is characterised. With respect to each organism, the bin that is identified as containing the maximum number of fragments for that particular organism is considered as its reference bin. Fragments assigned to the reference bin that are of the reference organism are deemed the True Positives. Similarly, fragments contained in the reference bin that are not of the reference organism are False Positives. Fragments of the reference organism that are located outside the reference bin are considered False Negatives and lastly, fragments that are not of the reference organism and located outside the reference bin are considered True Negatives. Using these interpretations we use the standard definition of sensitivity and specificity to evaluate the quality of binning.
For the semi-supervised case we look at the label assigned to each fragment and compare this assignment to its true origin. For each class of organism, at a specific taxanomic rank, we look at how many of those fragments have been assigned correctly using the same definitions as for the unsupervised case. Fragments that are not assigned a label are not included in the calculation.
We first evaluate the fidelity of OFDEG by clustering computed OFDEG values in an unsupervised manner. For compositional methods, the relative abundance of oligonucleotide frequencies and inherent biases therein have been linked to a sequence's phylogenetic origin. Raw OFDEG values are clustered using Partitioning Around Mediods , and the average silhouette width is used to compute the most representative number of classes based on the clustering structure.
As the reference sequence length for OFDEG calculation must be the same for all sequences in order to produce meaningful comparisons, the minimum contig lengths in the 10 reads tests highlighted the benefits of using OFDEG. For the phrap assembled data, the minimum contig length is only 230 bp, yet we see that the binning fidelity is competitive with features that require the entire sequence length. With an increase in minimum contig length for the Arachne assembled data to 1334 bp, again for the 10 reads test, the binning performance increases. This is even more prevalent when considering the 8 kbp tests, which have a minimum contig length of 8 kbp, where a near perfect separation of the two out of three dominant species is observed.
In this setting we require the use of a minimal amount of annotated data which we will refer to as labels, a basis for supervised learning. Using labels, we are able to investigate the possibility of a performance increase using existing knowledge of sequenced microbial DNA, an observation described in . Here we also use the S-GSOM algorithm . Fixed-sized SOMs were not used, as the imposition of a fixed sized map may result in incorrect representation of the input space, and subsequently poor clustering. Note, this was used only as a comparison of features, and not a contribution as a novel clustering technique. Similar to  we select as labels 10 kbp flanking regions of the conserved 16S rRNA gene, subject to rules also defined therein. OFDEG values are computed for each flanking sequence of 16S rRNA genes found in the genomes used in the simulated data sets. These values were augmented with the processed data sets as seeds. Additionally, Topology Type, Similarity Measure, Weight Initialisation Type, Neighbourhood Kernel, Initial Learning Rates, and Training Epochs for S-GSOM were selected to be the same. For comparison, we also evaluate classification performance at cluster percentages (CP) of 55% and 75%, as these parameter settings are recommended in .
To be able to use semi-supervised learning, we require an indication of the diversity of the metagenome, perhaps through targeted sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA. Given this, the flanking sequences are used as reference classes for binning. However, reference genomes would unlikely be available, given the current knowledge of microbial diversity. The accuracy is then determined by the correct identification of the taxa that is actually present in the data set. This, however, is not a requirement for binning, but merely a means to get a sense of species composition. Binning is still able to proceed without such a priori knowledge.
Overall perfomance and discussion
OFDEG values for genomes sourced from NCBI.
Acinetobacter sp. ADP1
-0.09469 ± 0.0057
-0.07171 ± 0.0053
-0.03765 ± 0.0010
Bacillus anthracis Ames 0581
-0.09552 ± 0.0058
-0.07474 ± 0.0067
-0.04156 ± 0.0014
Prochlorococcus marinus MIT 9211
-0.09507 ± 0.0049
-0.07274 ± 0.0042
-0.04361 ± 0.0045
Streptococcus pneumoniae R6
-0.09439 ± 0.0048
-0.07250 ± 0.0045
-0.03773 ± 0.0010
Shigella flexneri 2a str. 2457T
-0.09326 ± 0.0044
-0.07058 ± 0.0030
-0.03486 ± 0.0005
Escherichia coli str. K12 substr. W3110
-0.09310 ± 0.0039
-0.07054 ± 0.0046
-0.03498 ± 0.0006
Thermoplasma volcanium GSS1
-0.09296 ± 0.0047
-0.07194 ± 0.0050
-0.03639 ± 0.0010
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA7
-0.09655 ± 0.0067
-0.07664 ± 0.0064
-0.04511 ± 0.0045
Xylella fastidiosa M23
-0.09410 ± 0.0049
-0.07097 ± 0.0036
-0.03572 ± 0.0014
Maricaulis maris MCS10
-0.09540 ± 0.0057
-0.07297 ± 0.0043
-0.04096 ± 0.0019
An important consideration is data dimensionality. For instance, projecting a sequence into TF space results in the generation of input vectors of dimension 256 for each sequence in the data set. With a large number of sequences, the computational cost of clustering such data will be taxing, even more so with higher order oligos. Alternatively, OFDEG is a consistent, one-dimensional feature space - two at most, when used in conjunction with G-C content - irrespective of the underlying word size, which will be beneficial in the initial analysis of metagenome data. We appreciate that seeding posseses the capacity for a more accurate classification of environmental DNA fragments. However, care should be taken when using this approach. As noted earlier, this setting relies on the premis that the 16S rRNA flanking sequences are representative of the biota in the sample and are available for each species in the metagenome. Using seeds which are incorrect will degrade the classification performance, even if the clustered data is structured correctly.
Practical applications of using OFDEG should take into consideration the following. Current next-generation sequencing technologies are producing output at higher rates and shorter read lengths. The method proposed operates under the assumption that some assembly has been carried out on the raw sequencer output. Akin to compositional methods, sufficient sequence length is required to make inferences based only on the ordering of base-pairs. However, this compositional feature appears to make a stronger association between phylogeny and sequence composition given shorter strecthes of DNA. Of additional importance are repeated regions in genomic DNA. These will be captured and reflected in the computed OFDEG values, which will be lower in comparison to other seqeuneces. For the detection and removal of, say, redundant repeats, a preprocessing tool could be used to remove these prior to OFDEG computation. This, however, is beyond the scope of this work. We emphasise that this work serves to describe the observation of a characteristic linear gradient and its potential application. Although we are unable to fully explain its theoretical underpinnings or provide an in-depth biological interpretation, we are empirically able to show that it does have links to microbial phylogeny.
Here we have presented a novel representation of short DNA sequences, derived from oligonulceotide frequency profiles, which allows for the phylogenetic characterisation of relatively short sequences on the basis of sequence compostion alone. Although we have found that microbial phylogeny is potentially captured in OFDEG, we aim to develop a theoretical framework as well as ellicit its biological meaning. Unsupervised clustering revealed OFDEG related features performed better than standard tetranucleotide frequency in representing a relevant organism specific signal. The extension to a semi-supervised paradigm again demonstrated an improvement in binning performance when using OFDEG values. In light of the issues faced with semi-supervised classification of OFDEG values, an interesting prospect for future work is the analysis of seed selection and its influence on the accuracy of fragment classification, especially for data sets which contain short contigs.
Expressing each sequence in an appropriate feature space is more beneficial than developing intricate machine learning methods that wrap around feature representations that do not capture phylogenetic signals in short sequences. There is a pressing need to break away from reliance on assemblers that were designed to handle single genomes, built without consideration for processing significantly different, heterogeneous metagenome sequence data. Addressing the fundamental issue of a suitable representation for short DNA sequences has shown potential as a first step toward unbiased, database-independent characterisation of metagenome data and novel microbiota.
In this section we describe what we mean by OFDEG, and subsequently how it can be used as a genomic signature with particular emphasis on its application to the analysis of a metagenome. In order to describe OFDEG we firstly outline the procedure for computing the oligonucleotide frequency (OF) profile of a DNA sequence from which OFDEG is observed. The OF profile of a DNA sequence captures the relative abundance of all possible enumerations of oligos, or words, of a predefined length. For example, capturing words of length m would constitute 4 m possible combinations of the bases A, C, G and T. As a DNA sequence is traversed, using a sliding window and a user-specified step size, each word that is encountered adds to the total count of that word in the sequence's OF profile. What results is a histogram depicting the relative abundance of all words present in a sequence. Normalisation of the OF profile by sequence length allows sequences of different lengths to be compared. Comparisons can be made using a Euclidean distance metric, for instance. Now, sequences that have similiar OF distributions are inferred to be phylogenetically similar up to some taxanomic rank. The phylogenetic signal that is captured using length-normalised OF profiles is weakly present in sequences of 1,000 base pairs and greater. It is this common signal between genomes and its sub-sequences that allows the association between a DNA fragment and its source organism.
Observation of a linear relationship between error and sub-sequence length
Validitiy of the linear model
Step size and sampling depth
Computation of OFDEG
Start with a sequence S L of length L. If L >c, truncate S L to S c from a random location anywhere along the sequence.
Take a sub-sequence s i of length i = m (initially) from a random location in S c . Compute the OF profile of s i and of S c and compute the Euclidean distance between them, and let this disparity be referred to as the error and denoted e i . For the same sub-sequence length, repeat the procedure d-times. Taking the average of all the error values, , gives one sample point.
Increase the sub-sequence length by t, i.e. i + t. Repeating the above procedure gives , and so on, until we have obtained - note that = 0 as there is no disparity between s c and S c .
Performing linear regression on all 's for i ∈ [m, αc] gives an estimation of a sequence's OFDEG value.
If L >c, go back to step 1 and repeat steps 1 to 4, r c times, to obtain a more robust OFDEG estimate.
As previously described, the predefined paramters were empircally determined, most notably the range of α being approximately (0, 0.8].
Capturing a characterestic of a sequence
According to our observation, if the OF profile is sparse, then most of the time we have captured predominantly the same oligo; in such a case, the error gradient will be strongly linear and closer to 1. If on the other hand, the OF profile is wildly distributed, the linearity would be relatively weaker, and the gradient lower. The distribution of an OF profile is in turn thought to be governed by the complexity of the sequence. Sequences that exhibit high degrees of polymorphism will have more dispersed oligo counts for the same sequence length than a simple sequence, and will therefore yeild lower error gradients. We elaborate on this concept by simulating DNA sequences of controlled complexity. We construct these aritificial sequences by taking an arbitrary base, say A, and allowing the next base to be one of G, C or T with probability equal to p.
Overall ranking in terms of discriminant ability.
avg. S p
avg. S n
OFDEG+GC (CP = 55%)
TF (CP = 75%)
OFDEG+GC (CP = 75%)
TF (CP = 55%)
Notably, there will be unavoidable inter-genomic overlap in the computed OFDEG values, depending on the location of the sequence along the genome. In particular, species with a high degree of polymorphism will be difficult to characterise in the presence of other species. This is observed at a more significant level for smaller oligos (less than a word size of 4). Where we see outliers that are of higher gradient, we have sampled a genomic sequence of lower complexity and conversely outliers of lower gradient are regions in the genome that have higher complexity. We can attribute this to varying degrees of sequence polymorphism, and possibly even due to horizontal gene transfer events. The variability of the genome is captured more concisely in longer DNA fragments, as is expected. Shorter fragments exhibit greater variations, and are more susceptible to noise. However, evidence remains that there is still a phylogenetic signal present for relatively short sequences. The ability to capture overall complexity of short microbial DNA sequences could be associated with the high density of open-reading frames, which leaves little room for highly variable inter-genic regions that are more susceptible to the pressures of environmental stresses and evolutionary changes.
Other papers from the meeting have been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 10 Supplement 15, 2009: Eighth International Conference on Bioinformatics (InCoB2009): Bioinformatics, available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10?issue=S15.
List of abbreviations used
Oligonucleotide Frequency Derived Error Gradient
The authors wish to thank Arthur L. Hsu, Sen-Lin Tang and Bill Chang for their comments and feedback, and Chon-Kit Kenneth Chan for technical assistance.
This article has been published as part of BMC Genomics Volume 10 Supplement 3, 2009: Eighth International Conference on Bioinformatics (InCoB2009): Computational Biology. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10?issue=S3.
- DeLong E: Microbial Community Genomics in the Ocean. Nature Reviews. 2005, 3: 459-469. 10.1038/nrmicro1158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- DeLong E, Preston C, Mincer T, Rich V, Hallam S, Frigaard NU, Martinez A, Sullivan M, Edwards R, Brito B, Chisholm S, Karl D: Community Genomics Among Stratified Microbial Assemblages in the Ocean's Interior. Science. 2006, 311: 496-503. 10.1126/science.1120250.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Daniel R: The Metagenomics of Soil. Nature Reviews. 2005, 3: 470-478. 10.1038/nrmicro1160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barns SM, Fundyga RE, Jeffries MW, Pace NR: Remarkable archeal diversity detected in a Yellowstone National Park hot spring environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994, 91: 1609-1613. 10.1073/pnas.91.5.1609.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huber R, Huber H, Stetter KO: Towards ecology of hyperthermophiles: biotypes, new isolation strategies and novel metabolic properties. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2002, 24: 615-623. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2000.tb00562.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Christner BC, Kvitko BH, Reeve JN: Molecular identification of Bacteria and Eukraya inhabiting an Antarctic cryoconite hole. Extremophiles. 2003, 7: 177-183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bellnoch Sea: Prokaryotic genetic diversity throughout the salinity gradient of a coastal solar saltern. Environmental Microbiology. 2002, 4: 349-360. 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00306.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Allen E, Banfield J: Community Genomics in Microbial Ecology and Evolution. Nature Reviews. 2005, 3:Google Scholar
- Keller M, Zengler K: Tapping into Microbial Diversity. Nature Reviews. 2004, 2: 141-150. 10.1038/nrmicro819.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schleper C, Jurgens G, Jonuscheit M: Genomic Studies of Uncultivated Archea. Nature Reviews. 2005, 3: 479-488. 10.1038/nrmicro1159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lorenz P, Eck J: Metagenomics and industrial applications. Nature Reviews. 2005, 3: 510-516. 10.1038/nrmicro1161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schmeisser C, Steele H, Streit W: Metagenomics, biotechnology with non-culturable microbes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007, 75: 955-962. 10.1007/s00253-007-0945-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Hamady M, Fraser-Liggett CM, Knight R, Gordon JI: The Human Microbiome Project. Nature. 2007, 449: 804-810. 10.1038/nature06244.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Noonan JP, Coop G, Kudaravalli S, Smith D, Krause J, Alessi J, Chen F, Platt D, Paabo S, Pritchard JK, Rubin EM: Sequencing and Analysis of Neanderthal Genomic DNA. Science. 2006, 314 (5802): 1113-1118. 10.1126/science.1131412.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Green RE, Krause J, Ptak SE, Briggs AW, Ronan MTea: Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature. 2006, 444: 330-336. 10.1038/nature05336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McHardy A, Rigoutsos I: What's in the mix: phylogenetic classifcation of metagenome sequence samples. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2007, 10: 499-503. 10.1016/j.mib.2007.08.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Andersson A, Lindberg M, Jakobsson H, Backhed F, Nyren P, Engstrand L: Comparative Analysis of Human Gut Microbiota by Barcoded Pyrosequencing. PLoS One. 2008, 3 (7): e2836-10.1371/journal.pone.0002836.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tringe S, von Mering C, Kobayashi A, Salamov A, Chen K, Chang H, Podar M, Short J, Mathur E, Detter J, Bork P, Hugenholtz P, Rubin E: Comparative Metagenomics of Microbial Communities. Science. 2005, 308: 554-7. 10.1126/science.1107851.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Woese C, Fox G: Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1977, 74 (11): 5088-90. 10.1073/pnas.74.11.5088.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pace N: A molecular view of microbial diversity and the biosphere. Science. 1997, 276: 734-40. 10.1126/science.276.5313.734.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Venter JC, Remington K, Heidelberg JF, Halpern AL, Rusch D, Eisen JA, Wu D, Paulsen I, Nelson KE, Nelson W, Fouts DE, Levy S, Knap AH, Lomas MW, Nealson K, White O, Peterson J, Hoffman J, Parsons R, Baden-Tillson H, Pfannkoch C, Rogers YH, Smith HO: Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the Sargasso Sea. Science. 2004, 304 (5667): 66-74. 10.1126/science.1093857.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- DeSantis T, Brodie E, Moberg J, Zubieta I, Piceno Y, Andersen G: High-density universal 16S rRNA microarray analysis reveals broader diversity than typical clone library when sampling the environment. Microbial Ecology. 2007, 53 (3): 371-83. 10.1007/s00248-006-9134-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hur I, Chun J: A Method for Comparing Multiple Bacterial Community Structures from 16S rDNA Clone Library Sequences. The Journal of Microbiology. 2004, 42: 9-13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- DeSantis T, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie E, Keller K, Huber T, Dalevi D, Hu P, Andersen G: Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2006, 72 (7): 5069-72. 10.1128/AEM.03006-05.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- DeSantis T, Hugenholtz P, Keller K, Brodie E, Larsen N, Piceno Y, Phan R, Andersen GL: NAST: a multiple sequence alignment server for comparative analysis of 16S rRNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34 (Web Server issue): W394-W399. 10.1093/nar/gkl244.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cole J, Wang Q, Cardenas E, Fish J, Chai B, Farris J, Kulam-Syed-Mohideen A, McGarrell D, Marsh T, Garrity G, Tiedje J: The Ribosomal Database Project: improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 37 (Database issue): D141-D145.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu Z, DeSantis T, Andersen G, Knight R: Accurate taxonomy assignments from 16S rRNA sequences produced by highly parallel pyrosequencers. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36 (18): e120-10.1093/nar/gkn491.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Acinas1 S, Klepac-Ceraj V, Hunt D, Pharino C, Ceraj I, Distel D, Polz M: Fine-scale phylogenetic architecture of a complex bacterial community. Nature. 2004, 430: 551-4. 10.1038/nature02649.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lozupone C, Knight R: UniFrac: a New Phylogenetic Method for Comparing Microbial Communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005, 71 (12): 8228-35. 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8228-8235.2005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McHardy AC, Martin HG, Tsirigos A, Hugenholtz P, Rigoutsos I: Accurate phylogenetic classification of variable-length DNA fragments. Nature Methods. 2007, 4: 63-72. 10.1038/nmeth976.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blow N: Exploring unseen communities. Nature. 2008, 453: 687-690. 10.1038/453687a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hanekamp K, Bohnebeck U, Beszteri B, Valentin K: PhyloGena - a user-friendly system for automated phylogenetic annotation of unknown sequences. Bioinformatics. 2007, 23 (7): 793-801. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Uchiyama I: MBGD: a platform for microbial comparative genomics based on the automated construction of orthologous groups. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 35 (Database issue): D343-D346. 10.1093/nar/gkl978.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Uchiyama I, Higuchi T, Kobayashi I: CGAT: a comparative genome analysis tool for visualizing alignments in the analysis of complex evolutionary changes between closely related genomes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006, 7 (472):
- Wommack KE, Bhavsar J, Ravel J: Metagenomics: Read Length Matters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2008, 74 (5): 1453-63. 10.1128/AEM.02181-07.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huson D, Auch A, Qi J, Schuster S: MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data. Genome Research. 2007, 17: 377-86. 10.1101/gr.5969107.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krause L, Diaz N, Goesmann A, Kelly S, Nattkemper T, Rohwer F, Edwards R, Stoye J: Phylogenetic classification of short environmental DNA fragments. Nucleic Acids Research. 2008, 36 (7): 2230-9. 10.1093/nar/gkn038.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Finn RD, Mistry J, Schuster-Bockler B, Griffiths-Jones S, Hollich V, Lassmann1 T, Moxon S, Marshall M, Khanna A, Durbin R, Eddy SR, Sonnhammer ELL, Bateman A: Pfam: clans, web tools and services. Nucleic Acids Research. 2006, 247-51. 10.1093/nar/gkj149. 34 Database
- Mavromatis K, Ivanova N, Barry K, Shapiro H, Goltsman E, McHardy AC, Rigoutsos I, Salamov A, Korzeniewski F, Land M, Lapidus A, Grigoriev I, Richardson P, Hugenholtz P, Kyrpides NC: Use of simulated data sets to evaluate the fidelity of metagenomic processing methods. Nature Methods. 2007, 4 (6): 495-500. 10.1038/nmeth1043.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Karlin S, Mrazek J, Campbell A: Compositional Biases of Bacterial Genomes and Evolutionary Implications. Journal of Bacteriology. 1997, 179 (12): 3899-3913.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pride D, Meinersmann R, Wassenaar Tea: Evolutionary Implications of Microbial Genome Tetranucleotide Frequency Biases. Genome Research. 2003, 13: 145-158. 10.1101/gr.335003.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Teeling H, Meyerdierks A, Bauer M, Amann R, Glockner FO: Application of tetranucleotide frequencies for the assignment of genomic fragments. Environmental Microbiology. 2004, 6 (9): 938-47. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00624.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Abe T, Sugawara H, Kinouchi M, Kanaya S, Ikemura T: Novel Phylogenetic Studies of Genomic Sequence Fragments Derived from Uncultured Microbe Mixtures in Environmental and Clinical Samples. DNA Research. 2005, 12 (5): 281-90. 10.1093/dnares/dsi015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hsu A, Tang SL, Halgamuge SK: An unsupervised hierarchical dynamic self-organizing approach to cancer class discovery and marker gene identification in microarray data. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19: 2131-2140. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg296.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Alahakoon D, Halgamuge S, Srinivasan B: Dynamic self-organizing maps with controlled growth for knowledge discovery. IEEE Trans Neural Netw. 2000, 11 (3): 601-614. 10.1109/72.846732.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chan CKK, Hsu A, Halgamuge SK, Tang SL: Binning sequences using very sparse labels within a metagenome. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008, 9: 215-10.1186/1471-2105-9-215.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Teeling H, Waldmann J, Lombardot T, Bauer M, Glockner FO: TETRA: a web-service and a stand-alone program for the analysis and comparison of tetranucleotide usage patterns in DNA sequences. BMC Bioinformatics. 2004, 5 (163):
- Batzoglou S, Jaffe DB, Stanley K, et al: ARACHNE: A Whole-Genome Shotgun Assembler. Genome Research. 2002, 12: 177-189. 10.1101/gr.208902.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kaufman L, Rousseeuw P: Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. 1990, John Wiley & SonsView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.