↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

A Platform-Independent Method for Detecting Errors in Metagenomic Sequencing Data: DRISEE

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
citeulike
16 CiteULike
Title
A Platform-Independent Method for Detecting Errors in Metagenomic Sequencing Data: DRISEE
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, June 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002541
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin P. Keegan, William L. Trimble, Jared Wilkening, Andreas Wilke, Travis Harrison, Mark D'Souza, Folker Meyer

Abstract

We provide a novel method, DRISEE (duplicate read inferred sequencing error estimation), to assess sequencing quality (alternatively referred to as "noise" or "error") within and/or between sequencing samples. DRISEE provides positional error estimates that can be used to inform read trimming within a sample. It also provides global (whole sample) error estimates that can be used to identify samples with high or varying levels of sequencing error that may confound downstream analyses, particularly in the case of studies that utilize data from multiple sequencing samples. For shotgun metagenomic data, we believe that DRISEE provides estimates of sequencing error that are more accurate and less constrained by technical limitations than existing methods that rely on reference genomes or the use of scores (e.g. Phred). Here, DRISEE is applied to (non amplicon) data sets from both the 454 and Illumina platforms. The DRISEE error estimate is obtained by analyzing sets of artifactual duplicate reads (ADRs), a known by-product of both sequencing platforms. We present DRISEE as an open-source, platform-independent method to assess sequencing error in shotgun metagenomic data, and utilize it to discover previously uncharacterized error in de novo sequence data from the 454 and Illumina sequencing platforms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 15 8%
Brazil 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 148 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 59 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 25%
Student > Master 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Professor 12 7%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 12 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 102 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 12%
Computer Science 12 7%
Environmental Science 8 4%
Engineering 7 4%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 21 12%