Cargando…

Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data

BACKGROUND: Artificial duplicates from pyrosequencing reads may lead to incorrect interpretation of the abundance of species and genes in metagenomic studies. Duplicated reads were filtered out in many metagenomic projects. However, since the duplicated reads observed in a pyrosequencing run also in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niu, Beifang, Fu, Limin, Sun, Shulei, Li, Weizhong
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874554/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388221
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-187
_version_ 1782181494926606336
author Niu, Beifang
Fu, Limin
Sun, Shulei
Li, Weizhong
author_facet Niu, Beifang
Fu, Limin
Sun, Shulei
Li, Weizhong
author_sort Niu, Beifang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Artificial duplicates from pyrosequencing reads may lead to incorrect interpretation of the abundance of species and genes in metagenomic studies. Duplicated reads were filtered out in many metagenomic projects. However, since the duplicated reads observed in a pyrosequencing run also include natural (non-artificial) duplicates, simply removing all duplicates may also cause underestimation of abundance associated with natural duplicates. RESULTS: We implemented a method for identification of exact and nearly identical duplicates from pyrosequencing reads. This method performs an all-against-all sequence comparison and clusters the duplicates into groups using an algorithm modified from our previous sequence clustering method cd-hit. This method can process a typical dataset in ~10 minutes; it also provides a consensus sequence for each group of duplicates. We applied this method to the underlying raw reads of 39 genomic projects and 10 metagenomic projects that utilized pyrosequencing technique. We compared the occurrences of the duplicates identified by our method and the natural duplicates made by independent simulations. We observed that the duplicates, including both artificial and natural duplicates, make up 4-44% of reads. The number of natural duplicates highly correlates with the samples' read density (number of reads divided by genome size). For high-complexity metagenomic samples lacking dominant species, natural duplicates only make up <1% of all duplicates. But for some other samples like transcriptomic samples, majority of the observed duplicates might be natural duplicates. CONCLUSIONS: Our method is available from http://cd-hit.org as a downloadable program and a web server. It is important not only to identify the duplicates from metagenomic datasets but also to distinguish whether they are artificial or natural duplicates. We provide a tool to estimate the number of natural duplicates according to user-defined sample types, so users can decide whether to retain or remove duplicates in their projects.
format Text
id pubmed-2874554
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28745542010-05-22 Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data Niu, Beifang Fu, Limin Sun, Shulei Li, Weizhong BMC Bioinformatics Research article BACKGROUND: Artificial duplicates from pyrosequencing reads may lead to incorrect interpretation of the abundance of species and genes in metagenomic studies. Duplicated reads were filtered out in many metagenomic projects. However, since the duplicated reads observed in a pyrosequencing run also include natural (non-artificial) duplicates, simply removing all duplicates may also cause underestimation of abundance associated with natural duplicates. RESULTS: We implemented a method for identification of exact and nearly identical duplicates from pyrosequencing reads. This method performs an all-against-all sequence comparison and clusters the duplicates into groups using an algorithm modified from our previous sequence clustering method cd-hit. This method can process a typical dataset in ~10 minutes; it also provides a consensus sequence for each group of duplicates. We applied this method to the underlying raw reads of 39 genomic projects and 10 metagenomic projects that utilized pyrosequencing technique. We compared the occurrences of the duplicates identified by our method and the natural duplicates made by independent simulations. We observed that the duplicates, including both artificial and natural duplicates, make up 4-44% of reads. The number of natural duplicates highly correlates with the samples' read density (number of reads divided by genome size). For high-complexity metagenomic samples lacking dominant species, natural duplicates only make up <1% of all duplicates. But for some other samples like transcriptomic samples, majority of the observed duplicates might be natural duplicates. CONCLUSIONS: Our method is available from http://cd-hit.org as a downloadable program and a web server. It is important not only to identify the duplicates from metagenomic datasets but also to distinguish whether they are artificial or natural duplicates. We provide a tool to estimate the number of natural duplicates according to user-defined sample types, so users can decide whether to retain or remove duplicates in their projects. BioMed Central 2010-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC2874554/ /pubmed/20388221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-187 Text en Copyright ©2010 Niu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 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.
spellingShingle Research article
Niu, Beifang
Fu, Limin
Sun, Shulei
Li, Weizhong
Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
title Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
title_full Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
title_fullStr Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
title_full_unstemmed Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
title_short Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
title_sort artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
topic Research article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874554/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388221
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-187
work_keys_str_mv AT niubeifang artificialandnaturalduplicatesinpyrosequencingreadsofmetagenomicdata
AT fulimin artificialandnaturalduplicatesinpyrosequencingreadsofmetagenomicdata
AT sunshulei artificialandnaturalduplicatesinpyrosequencingreadsofmetagenomicdata
AT liweizhong artificialandnaturalduplicatesinpyrosequencingreadsofmetagenomicdata