Skip to main content
. 2017 Sep 7;5:e3788. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3788

Figure 5. Evaluation of MetaCRAST, Crass, and MinCED on real AMD and EBPR metagenomes.

Figure 5

(A) Total number of CRISPR spacers detected in real AMD and EBPR metagenomes using four different detection methods—Crass (de novo), MetaCRAST (using assembly-guided queries), MetaCRAST (using taxonomy-guided queries), and MinCED (de novo). Taxonomy-guided and assembly-guided queries are provided as Tables S3S4 and S6S7. (B) Comparison of spacers detected in the real AMD metagenome using Crass (de novo), MetaCRAST (using taxonomy-guided queries), MetaCRAST (using assembly-guided queries), and MinCED (de novo). Comparison was performed using Venny 2.1 (http://bioinfogp.cnb.csic.es/tools/venny/). (C) Comparison of spacers detected in the real EBPR metagenome using the same methods as in (B) Comparison was performed using Venny 2.1.