*<p>: all the listed numbers of OTU are the average numbers over xx simulations.</p
<p>Relative abundance was calculated by normalizing number of core OTU sequences to the total number...
<p>Richness (A) of V8 OTUs (0.03 distance) observed and those predicted (Chao1) for samples before n...
<p>CI represents confidence interval.</p><p>The average metric values of different algorithms (Mean ...
<p>The results of OTUs estimated with different frequency thresholds at different dissimilarity leve...
<p>Comparison of number of OTUs at the 3% (0.03), 5% (0.05), and 10% (0.10) dissimilarity level.</p
<p>Eight datasets used to test the performance of algorithms for OTU delineation.</p
<p>Comparison of the average classification accuracies of different algorithms for different numbers...
<p>Each data point is obtained by averaging over ten runs, each of which has an independently random...
<p>The top 5% threshold of FST values for all comparisons in simulations under different demographic...
<p>Comparative connection measurements of various algorithms over all 28 simulations.</p
<p>The number of the OTUs by the prior intraspecific divergence calculated with ABGD online.</p
There were 1,000 iterations of each simulation, each containing 1,024 observations of arbitrary time...
<p>Each method generated some OTUs which consist entirely of sequence reads that were culled in the ...
a<p>The P value was calculated in QIIME (see methods).</p>b<p>the average percentage of reads for ea...
<p>Number of significant differentially abundant OTUs identified using DESeq2 (padj < 0.05), for all...
<p>Relative abundance was calculated by normalizing number of core OTU sequences to the total number...
<p>Richness (A) of V8 OTUs (0.03 distance) observed and those predicted (Chao1) for samples before n...
<p>CI represents confidence interval.</p><p>The average metric values of different algorithms (Mean ...
<p>The results of OTUs estimated with different frequency thresholds at different dissimilarity leve...
<p>Comparison of number of OTUs at the 3% (0.03), 5% (0.05), and 10% (0.10) dissimilarity level.</p
<p>Eight datasets used to test the performance of algorithms for OTU delineation.</p
<p>Comparison of the average classification accuracies of different algorithms for different numbers...
<p>Each data point is obtained by averaging over ten runs, each of which has an independently random...
<p>The top 5% threshold of FST values for all comparisons in simulations under different demographic...
<p>Comparative connection measurements of various algorithms over all 28 simulations.</p
<p>The number of the OTUs by the prior intraspecific divergence calculated with ABGD online.</p
There were 1,000 iterations of each simulation, each containing 1,024 observations of arbitrary time...
<p>Each method generated some OTUs which consist entirely of sequence reads that were culled in the ...
a<p>The P value was calculated in QIIME (see methods).</p>b<p>the average percentage of reads for ea...
<p>Number of significant differentially abundant OTUs identified using DESeq2 (padj < 0.05), for all...
<p>Relative abundance was calculated by normalizing number of core OTU sequences to the total number...
<p>Richness (A) of V8 OTUs (0.03 distance) observed and those predicted (Chao1) for samples before n...
<p>CI represents confidence interval.</p><p>The average metric values of different algorithms (Mean ...
DOI
Add to ORKG