Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 30;21:37. doi: 10.1186/s12859-020-3372-6

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Improvement of metagenomic-SIP relative to conventional metagenomics with respect to co-assembly quality of 13C-labeled genomes. Values greater than zero indicate improvement of metagenomic-SIP relative to conventional metagenomics (Bonferroni correction, n = 6; *, p-values < 0.05; **, p-values < 0.01; ***; p-values < 0.001). a and c The difference in proportion of each labeled genome (n = 100) recovered (i.e. aligned to contigs) and the difference in their NGA50 (in base pairs; where > 50% of the genome is aligned to contigs in both metagenomic simulation types), respectively, varies between communities that differ in G + C content when sequenced at different depths. b and d The difference in proportion of each labeled genome recovered (i.e. aligned to contigs, n = 50, 100, 200) and the difference in their NGA50 (in base pairs; where > 50% of the genome is aligned to contigs in both metagenomic simulation types), respectively, for low G + C communities with respect to the number of labeled genomes per sample and for high G + C communities with respect to the position of the BD window