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.

Comparison of the dbOTU implementations.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Benchmarks for the speed of the entire OTU calling process.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Comparisons of communities analyzed by different methods.

dbOTU3 produces nearly identical results with dbOTU2 when visualized in a principal coordinate analysis ordination plot. Each point represents a community resulting from analysis of the mock community data one of the OTU callers. (The two triangles representing dbOTU2 and dbOTU3 always appear on top of one another, making a six-pointed triangle.) The “true composition” is the community composition expected based on how the communities were constructed. The principal components were computed using a matrix of the square roots of the Jensen-Shannon divergence between each pair of computed community compositions.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 3.

Benchmarks for the speed of the dissimilarity metric.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 2.

Comparison of genetic dissimilarities.

The dbOTU2 metric (blue crosses) and dbOTU3’s Levenshtein metric (pink circles) predict true pairwise dissimilarities. Each point represents a comparison between a pair of sequences that were subjected to the genetic criterion while running dbOTU3 on the mock community data.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 4.

Accuracy of the genetic classification.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Correlation coefficients between the genetic dissimilarities.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Benchmarks for the speed of the distribution criteria.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Sequence count information for the case in which the simulated χ2 test and likelihood-ratio test disagree.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Likelihood-ratio test at varying p-value thresholds.

More »

Table 8 Expand