Open Access
| Issue |
BIO Web Conf.
Volume 232, 2026
2026 16th International Conference on Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics (ICBBB 2026)
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 01002 | |
| Number of page(s) | 12 | |
| Section | Bioinformatics Algorithms and Advanced Omics Data Analysis | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202623201002 | |
| Published online | 24 April 2026 | |
- S.F. Altschul, W. Gish, W. Miller et al., Basic local alignment search tool, Journal of Molecular Biology 215, 403 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [Google Scholar]
- Z. Zhang, S. Schwartz, L. Wagner et al., A greedy algorithm for aligning dna sequences, Journal of Computational Biology 7, 203 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1089/10665270050081478 [Google Scholar]
- D.H. Huson, A.F. Auch, J. Qi et al., Megan analysis of metagenomic data, Genome Research 17, 377 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.5969107 [Google Scholar]
- R. Ounit, S. Wanamaker, T.J. Close et al., Clark: fast and accurate classification of metagenomic and genomic sequences using discriminative k-mers, BMC Genomics 16 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1419-2 [Google Scholar]
- D. Kim, L. Song, F. Breitwieser et al., Centrifuge: Rapid and sensitive classification of metagenomic sequences, Genome Research 26, gr.210641.116 (2016). 10.1101/gr.210641.116 [Google Scholar]
- D.E. Wood, J. Lu, B. Langmead, Improved metagenomic analysis with kraken 2, Genome biology 20, 257 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1891-0 [Google Scholar]
- F. Meyer, A. Fritz, Z.L. Deng et al., Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation: the second round of challenges, Nature Methods 19, 429 (2022). 10.1038/s41592-022-01431-4 [Google Scholar]
- A.B.R. McIntyre, R. Ounit, E. Afshinnekoo et al., Comprehensive benchmarking and ensemble approaches for metagenomic classifiers, Genome Biology 18, 182 (2017). 10.1186/s13059-017-1299-7 [Google Scholar]
- S.H. Ye, K.J. Siddle, D.J. Park, P.C. Sabeti, Benchmarking metagenomics tools for taxonomic classification, Cell 178, 779 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.010 [Google Scholar]
- M. Gray, Z. Zhao, G.L. Rosen, How scalable are clade-specific marker k-mer based hash methods for metagenomic taxonomic classification?, Frontiers in Signal Processing 2 (2022). 10.3389/frsip.2022.842513 [Google Scholar]
- D.J. Nasko, S. Koren, A.M. Phillippy, T.J. Treangen, Refseq database growth influences the accuracy of k-mer-based lowest common ancestor species identification, Genome Biology 19, 165 (2018). 10.1186/s13059-018-1554-6 [Google Scholar]
- Refseq growth statistics, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/refseq/statistics/, accessed: 2025-03-24 [Google Scholar]
- M. Cavattoni, M. Comin, Classgraph: Improving metagenomic read classification with overlap graphs, Journal of Computational Biology 30, 633 (2023). 10.1089/cmb.2022.0208 [Google Scholar]
- A. Sczyrba, P. Hofmann, A.C. McHardy, Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation—a benchmark of metagenomics software, Nature Methods 14, 1063–1071 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4458 [Google Scholar]
- D. Storato, M. Comin, K2mem: Discovering discriminative k-mers from sequencing data for metagenomic reads classification, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 19, 220 (2022). 10.1109/TCBB.2021.3117406 [Google Scholar]
- J. Qian, D. Marchiori, M. Comin, Fast and Sensitive Classification of Short Metagenomic Reads with SKraken, in Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, edited by N. Peixoto, M. Silveira, H.H. Ali, C. Maciel, E.L. van den Broek (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 212–226, ISBN 978-3-319-94806-5 [Google Scholar]
- A. Latorre-Pérez, J. Pascual, M. Porcar, C. Vilanova, A lab in the field: applications of real-time, in situ metagenomic sequencing, Biology Methods and Protocols 5 (2020), bpaa016, https://academic.oup.eom/biomethods/article-pdf/5/1/bpaa016/34010873/bpaa016.10.1093/biomethods/bpaa016 [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.