Comparing fixed sampling with minimizer sampling when using k-mer indexes to find maximal exact matches

Bioinformatics applications and pipelines increasingly use k-mer indexes to search for similar sequences. The major problem with k-mer indexes is that they require lots of memory. Sampling is often used to reduce index size and query time. Most applications use one of two major types of sampling: fi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2018-02, Vol.13 (2), p.e0189960
Hauptverfasser: Almutairy, Meznah, Torng, Eric
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page e0189960
container_title PloS one
container_volume 13
creator Almutairy, Meznah
Torng, Eric
description Bioinformatics applications and pipelines increasingly use k-mer indexes to search for similar sequences. The major problem with k-mer indexes is that they require lots of memory. Sampling is often used to reduce index size and query time. Most applications use one of two major types of sampling: fixed sampling and minimizer sampling. It is well known that fixed sampling will produce a smaller index, typically by roughly a factor of two, whereas it is generally assumed that minimizer sampling will produce faster query times since query k-mers can also be sampled. However, no direct comparison of fixed and minimizer sampling has been performed to verify these assumptions. We systematically compare fixed and minimizer sampling using the human genome as our database. We use the resulting k-mer indexes for fixed sampling and minimizer sampling to find all maximal exact matches between our database, the human genome, and three separate query sets, the mouse genome, the chimp genome, and an NGS data set. We reach the following conclusions. First, using larger k-mers reduces query time for both fixed sampling and minimizer sampling at a cost of requiring more space. If we use the same k-mer size for both methods, fixed sampling requires typically half as much space whereas minimizer sampling processes queries only slightly faster. If we are allowed to use any k-mer size for each method, then we can choose a k-mer size such that fixed sampling both uses less space and processes queries faster than minimizer sampling. The reason is that although minimizer sampling is able to sample query k-mers, the number of shared k-mer occurrences that must be processed is much larger for minimizer sampling than fixed sampling. In conclusion, we argue that for any application where each shared k-mer occurrence must be processed, fixed sampling is the right sampling method.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0189960
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2036796315</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A525922034</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_06ad1f3b524b488b9d724583a2b93019</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A525922034</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8f115bc2180687fc08b5104c3f0f17e48f4e81c9abb8113fe3c1c1e4715b86a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1uL1DAYhoso7jr6D0QLgujFjDn0kNwIy-BhYGHB021I0y-djG0y26Q6-utNne4ylb2QXjT58rxvmjf9kuQpRitMS_xm54beyna1dxZWCDPOC3QvOceckmVBEL1_Mj5LHnm_QyinrCgeJmeE08gzfp40a9ftZW9sk2pzgDr1stu34_SnCdu0M9Z05jf0J_Ut2HTw4_D7sosrxtZwAJ8GFy1snXbyYDrZpnCQKsRZUFvwj5MHWrYenkzvRfL1_bsv64_Ly6sPm_XF5VIVnIQl0xjnlSKYoYKVWiFW5RhlimqkcQkZ0xkwrLisKoYx1UAVVhiyMqpYITO6SJ4fffet82LKyIuYQVHyguI8EpsjUTu5E_s-fmv_SzhpxN-C6xsh-2BUCwIVssaaVjnJqoyxitclyXJGJak4RTHdRfJ22m2oOqgV2NDLdmY6X7FmKxr3Q-Qlz1CBo8GryaB31wP4IDrjFbSttOAGLzDnlMebIiSiL_5B7z7dRDUyHsBY7eK-ajQVFznJOYnsmNLqDio-NXRGxR9Km1ifCV7PBJEJcAiNHLwXm8-f_p-9-jZnX56wW5Bt2HrXDsE46-dgdgRV77zvQd-GjJEY--EmDTH2g5j6IcqenV7QreimAegf3NcFOA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2036796315</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing fixed sampling with minimizer sampling when using k-mer indexes to find maximal exact matches</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Almutairy, Meznah ; Torng, Eric</creator><contributor>Kalendar, Ruslan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Almutairy, Meznah ; Torng, Eric ; Kalendar, Ruslan</creatorcontrib><description>Bioinformatics applications and pipelines increasingly use k-mer indexes to search for similar sequences. The major problem with k-mer indexes is that they require lots of memory. Sampling is often used to reduce index size and query time. Most applications use one of two major types of sampling: fixed sampling and minimizer sampling. It is well known that fixed sampling will produce a smaller index, typically by roughly a factor of two, whereas it is generally assumed that minimizer sampling will produce faster query times since query k-mers can also be sampled. However, no direct comparison of fixed and minimizer sampling has been performed to verify these assumptions. We systematically compare fixed and minimizer sampling using the human genome as our database. We use the resulting k-mer indexes for fixed sampling and minimizer sampling to find all maximal exact matches between our database, the human genome, and three separate query sets, the mouse genome, the chimp genome, and an NGS data set. We reach the following conclusions. First, using larger k-mers reduces query time for both fixed sampling and minimizer sampling at a cost of requiring more space. If we use the same k-mer size for both methods, fixed sampling requires typically half as much space whereas minimizer sampling processes queries only slightly faster. If we are allowed to use any k-mer size for each method, then we can choose a k-mer size such that fixed sampling both uses less space and processes queries faster than minimizer sampling. The reason is that although minimizer sampling is able to sample query k-mers, the number of shared k-mer occurrences that must be processed is much larger for minimizer sampling than fixed sampling. In conclusion, we argue that for any application where each shared k-mer occurrence must be processed, fixed sampling is the right sampling method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189960</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29389989</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Animals ; Bioinformatics ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Comparative analysis ; Computational Biology ; Computer science ; Data bases ; Data processing ; Datasets ; Genome, Human ; Genomes ; Genomics ; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing ; Humans ; International conferences ; Mice ; Models, Theoretical ; Molecular biology ; Query processing ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Sampling ; Sampling distributions ; Sampling methods ; Technology application</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-02, Vol.13 (2), p.e0189960</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Almutairy, Torng. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Almutairy, Torng 2018 Almutairy, Torng</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8f115bc2180687fc08b5104c3f0f17e48f4e81c9abb8113fe3c1c1e4715b86a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8f115bc2180687fc08b5104c3f0f17e48f4e81c9abb8113fe3c1c1e4715b86a43</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7254-1867</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5794061/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5794061/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,862,883,2098,2917,23853,27911,27912,53778,53780,79355,79356</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29389989$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Kalendar, Ruslan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Almutairy, Meznah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torng, Eric</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing fixed sampling with minimizer sampling when using k-mer indexes to find maximal exact matches</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Bioinformatics applications and pipelines increasingly use k-mer indexes to search for similar sequences. The major problem with k-mer indexes is that they require lots of memory. Sampling is often used to reduce index size and query time. Most applications use one of two major types of sampling: fixed sampling and minimizer sampling. It is well known that fixed sampling will produce a smaller index, typically by roughly a factor of two, whereas it is generally assumed that minimizer sampling will produce faster query times since query k-mers can also be sampled. However, no direct comparison of fixed and minimizer sampling has been performed to verify these assumptions. We systematically compare fixed and minimizer sampling using the human genome as our database. We use the resulting k-mer indexes for fixed sampling and minimizer sampling to find all maximal exact matches between our database, the human genome, and three separate query sets, the mouse genome, the chimp genome, and an NGS data set. We reach the following conclusions. First, using larger k-mers reduces query time for both fixed sampling and minimizer sampling at a cost of requiring more space. If we use the same k-mer size for both methods, fixed sampling requires typically half as much space whereas minimizer sampling processes queries only slightly faster. If we are allowed to use any k-mer size for each method, then we can choose a k-mer size such that fixed sampling both uses less space and processes queries faster than minimizer sampling. The reason is that although minimizer sampling is able to sample query k-mers, the number of shared k-mer occurrences that must be processed is much larger for minimizer sampling than fixed sampling. In conclusion, we argue that for any application where each shared k-mer occurrence must be processed, fixed sampling is the right sampling method.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bioinformatics</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Computational Biology</subject><subject>Computer science</subject><subject>Data bases</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Genome, Human</subject><subject>Genomes</subject><subject>Genomics</subject><subject>High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>International conferences</subject><subject>Mice</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Molecular biology</subject><subject>Query processing</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Sampling distributions</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Technology application</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1uL1DAYhoso7jr6D0QLgujFjDn0kNwIy-BhYGHB021I0y-djG0y26Q6-utNne4ylb2QXjT58rxvmjf9kuQpRitMS_xm54beyna1dxZWCDPOC3QvOceckmVBEL1_Mj5LHnm_QyinrCgeJmeE08gzfp40a9ftZW9sk2pzgDr1stu34_SnCdu0M9Z05jf0J_Ut2HTw4_D7sosrxtZwAJ8GFy1snXbyYDrZpnCQKsRZUFvwj5MHWrYenkzvRfL1_bsv64_Ly6sPm_XF5VIVnIQl0xjnlSKYoYKVWiFW5RhlimqkcQkZ0xkwrLisKoYx1UAVVhiyMqpYITO6SJ4fffet82LKyIuYQVHyguI8EpsjUTu5E_s-fmv_SzhpxN-C6xsh-2BUCwIVssaaVjnJqoyxitclyXJGJak4RTHdRfJ22m2oOqgV2NDLdmY6X7FmKxr3Q-Qlz1CBo8GryaB31wP4IDrjFbSttOAGLzDnlMebIiSiL_5B7z7dRDUyHsBY7eK-ajQVFznJOYnsmNLqDio-NXRGxR9Km1ifCV7PBJEJcAiNHLwXm8-f_p-9-jZnX56wW5Bt2HrXDsE46-dgdgRV77zvQd-GjJEY--EmDTH2g5j6IcqenV7QreimAegf3NcFOA</recordid><startdate>20180201</startdate><enddate>20180201</enddate><creator>Almutairy, Meznah</creator><creator>Torng, Eric</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7254-1867</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180201</creationdate><title>Comparing fixed sampling with minimizer sampling when using k-mer indexes to find maximal exact matches</title><author>Almutairy, Meznah ; Torng, Eric</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8f115bc2180687fc08b5104c3f0f17e48f4e81c9abb8113fe3c1c1e4715b86a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bioinformatics</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Computational Biology</topic><topic>Computer science</topic><topic>Data bases</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Genome, Human</topic><topic>Genomes</topic><topic>Genomics</topic><topic>High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>International conferences</topic><topic>Mice</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Molecular biology</topic><topic>Query processing</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Sampling distributions</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Technology application</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Almutairy, Meznah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torng, Eric</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Almutairy, Meznah</au><au>Torng, Eric</au><au>Kalendar, Ruslan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing fixed sampling with minimizer sampling when using k-mer indexes to find maximal exact matches</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-02-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e0189960</spage><pages>e0189960-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Bioinformatics applications and pipelines increasingly use k-mer indexes to search for similar sequences. The major problem with k-mer indexes is that they require lots of memory. Sampling is often used to reduce index size and query time. Most applications use one of two major types of sampling: fixed sampling and minimizer sampling. It is well known that fixed sampling will produce a smaller index, typically by roughly a factor of two, whereas it is generally assumed that minimizer sampling will produce faster query times since query k-mers can also be sampled. However, no direct comparison of fixed and minimizer sampling has been performed to verify these assumptions. We systematically compare fixed and minimizer sampling using the human genome as our database. We use the resulting k-mer indexes for fixed sampling and minimizer sampling to find all maximal exact matches between our database, the human genome, and three separate query sets, the mouse genome, the chimp genome, and an NGS data set. We reach the following conclusions. First, using larger k-mers reduces query time for both fixed sampling and minimizer sampling at a cost of requiring more space. If we use the same k-mer size for both methods, fixed sampling requires typically half as much space whereas minimizer sampling processes queries only slightly faster. If we are allowed to use any k-mer size for each method, then we can choose a k-mer size such that fixed sampling both uses less space and processes queries faster than minimizer sampling. The reason is that although minimizer sampling is able to sample query k-mers, the number of shared k-mer occurrences that must be processed is much larger for minimizer sampling than fixed sampling. In conclusion, we argue that for any application where each shared k-mer occurrence must be processed, fixed sampling is the right sampling method.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>29389989</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0189960</doi><tpages>e0189960</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7254-1867</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2018-02, Vol.13 (2), p.e0189960
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2036796315
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Algorithms
Animals
Bioinformatics
Biology and Life Sciences
Comparative analysis
Computational Biology
Computer science
Data bases
Data processing
Datasets
Genome, Human
Genomes
Genomics
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
Humans
International conferences
Mice
Models, Theoretical
Molecular biology
Query processing
Research and Analysis Methods
Sampling
Sampling distributions
Sampling methods
Technology application
title Comparing fixed sampling with minimizer sampling when using k-mer indexes to find maximal exact matches
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T02%3A01%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20fixed%20sampling%20with%20minimizer%20sampling%20when%20using%20k-mer%20indexes%20to%20find%20maximal%20exact%20matches&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Almutairy,%20Meznah&rft.date=2018-02-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e0189960&rft.pages=e0189960-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0189960&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA525922034%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2036796315&rft_id=info:pmid/29389989&rft_galeid=A525922034&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_06ad1f3b524b488b9d724583a2b93019&rfr_iscdi=true