Comparison between ribosomal assembly and machine learning tools for microbial identification of organisms with different characteristics
Stephanie Chau, Carlos RojasiD, Jorjeta G. Jetcheva, Mary Markart, Sudha Vijayakumar, Sophia Yuan, Vincent Stowbunenko, Amanda N. SheltoniD, William AndreopoulosiD
Abstract
Genome assembly tools are used to reconstruct genomic sequences from raw sequencing data, which are then used for identifying the organisms present in a metagenomic sample. More recently, machine learning approaches have been applied to a variety of bioinformatics problems, and in this paper, we explore their use for organism identification. We start out by evaluating several commonly used metagenomic assembly tools, including PhyloFlash, MEGAHIT, MetaSPAdes, Kraken2, Mothur, UniCycler, and PathRacer, and compare them against state-of-the art deep learning-based machine learning classification approaches represented by DNABERT and DeLUCS, in the context of two synthetic mock community datasets. Our analysis focuses on determining whether ensembling metagenome assembly tools with machine learning tools has the potential to improve identification performance relative to using the tools individually. We find that this is indeed the case, and analyze the level of effectiveness of potential tool ensembling for organisms with different characteristics (based on factors such as repetitiveness, genome size, and GC content). Author SummaryMetagenomic studies focus on the challenging problem of identifying the presence and abundance of different species in a sample. This process typically involves the creation of digital reads from the sample which correspond to small parts of the genome sequence, and then have to be assembled together by a genome assembly tool. More recently, machine learning approaches have been applied to a variety of bioinformatics problems, and in this paper, we explore their use for organism identification, and how they might complement traditional bioinformatics approaches. We conduct experiments with two representative state-of-the-art machine learning approaches and six metagenomic assembly tools in the context of two synthetic datasets. We find that for organisms with certain characteristics (levels of repetitiveness, GC content, and genome size), ensembling metagenome assembly tools with machine learning tools has the potential to improve species identification performance relative to using the tools individually.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.14
- Field percentile
- 38th percentile
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- DeepMAsED: Evaluating the quality of metagenomic assemblies
Olga Mineeva, Mateo Rojas-Carulla, … Nicholas D. Youngblut·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Feb 18, 2020
- metaMIC: reference-free Misassembly Identification and Correction of de novo metagenomic assemblies
Senying Lai, Shaojun Pan, … Xing‐Ming Zhao·Genome biologyPeer-reviewed·Nov 14, 2022
- Assembling Metagenomes, One Community At A Time
A.J. van der Walt, Marc W. Van Goethem, … Don Arthur Cowan·BMC GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Jul 10, 2017
- MT-MAG: Accurate and interpretable machine learning for complete or partial taxonomic assignments of metagenome-assembled genomes
Wanxin Li, Lila Kari A, … Laura A. Hug·bioRxiv·Jan 12, 2022
- ResMiCo: increasing the quality of metagenome-assembled genomes with deep learning
Olga Mineeva, Daniel Danciu, … Nicholas D. Youngblut·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·May 1, 2023
- Evaluating Metagenome Assembly on a Simple Defined Community with Many Strain Variants
Sherine Awad, Luiz C. Irber, C. Titus Brown·bioRxiv·Jul 3, 2017