Table 1 |
||||||
|
Comparison of EMIRGE with de novo assembly |
||||||
|
Method |
Community |
Number of expected SSUs |
Number of SSU sequences or fragments |
Number classified at genus levela |
N50 |
Weighted UniFrac distance |
|
|
||||||
|
EMIRGE |
Simulated simple |
10 |
11 |
10 (90%) |
1,537 |
0.03 |
|
Assembly fragments |
Simulated simple |
10 |
78 |
39 (50%) |
383 |
0.32 |
|
EMIRGE |
Simulated complex |
52b |
23 |
20 (87%) |
1,488 |
0.04 |
|
Assembly fragments |
Simulated complex |
52b |
320 |
212 (66%) |
122 |
0.26 |
|
EMIRGE |
Natural |
Unknown |
11 |
9 (82%) |
1,484 |
NA |
|
Assembly fragments |
Natural |
Unknown |
137 |
85 (62%) |
182 |
0.32c |
|
|
||||||
|
aRDP classifier with bootstrap cutoff > 50%; eukaryotes not classified. bWith abundance > 0.5%. cDistance to EMIRGE-defined community. NA, Not Applicable: true community structure is unknown |
||||||
|
Miller et al. Genome Biology 2011 12:R44 doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-5-r44 |
||||||
