Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

The comparison of properties of taxonomical and functional analyses for metagenomic samples.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 1.

The overall framework of Parallel-META 2.0.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Table 2.

Information about multiple 16S rRNA reference databases.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Figure 2.

The dual computational engines for functional analysis in Parallel-META 2.0.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Figure 3.

The visualization effects for different kinds of results.

(A) Global view, (B) Sample view, (C) Sub-sample view and (D) Phylogenetic view, (E) Sample view for SEED based functional analysis, and (F) GO-term based analysis.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Table 3.

Information about real metagenomic datasets.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Information about simulated metagenomic datasets.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Figure 4.

Running time of Parallel-META 1.0 and 2.0 with the same datasets and reference database (Greengenes).

The Y-axis is in 10-based log scale.

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Figure 5.

Error rate of taxonomical analysis of Parallel-META 1.0 and 2.0 with simulated data based on different databases at (A) phylum level and (B) genus level.

More »

Figure 5 Expand

Table 5.

Average error rate of taxonomical analysis of Parallel-META 2.0.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Figure 6.

Multiple sample comparison by Parallel-META 2.0.

More »

Figure 6 Expand

Figure 7.

Functional annotation results by GO-term based method.

More »

Figure 7 Expand

Figure 8.

Functional annotation results by SEED based method.

More »

Figure 8 Expand

Table 6.

Statistical results of Parallel-META 2.0 functional analysis.

More »

Table 6 Expand