Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24438450›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2014

Comparison of different assembly and annotation tools on analysis of simulated viral metagenomic communities in the gut.

Jorge F Vázquez-Castellanos, Rodrigo García-López, Vicente Pérez-Brocal, Miguel Pignatelli, Andrés Moya

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Heliyon · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Viral Eco-Genomic Tools: Development and Implementation for Aquatic Biomonitoring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. The Human Gut Phageome: Origins and Roles in the Human Gut Microbiome.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Enteric Virome and Carcinogenesis in the Gut.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020
    Review
  14. Beyond cells - The virome in the human holobiont.Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jorge F Vázquez-Castellanos
Rodrigo García-López
Vicente Pérez-Brocal
Miguel Pignatelli
Andrés MoyaFundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunidad Valencia (FISABIO)-Salud Pública, Avenida de Cataluña 21, 46020 Valencia, Spain. Andres.Moya@uv.es.
Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana · ESEuropean Bioinformatics Institute · GBUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe main limitations in the analysis of viral metagenomes are perhaps the high genetic variability and the lack of information in extant databases. To address these issues, several bioinformatic tools have been specifically designed or adapted for metagenomics by improving read assembly and creating more sensitive methods for homology detection. This study compares the performance of different available assemblers and taxonomic annotation software using simulated viral-metagenomic data.

resultsWe simulated two 454 viral metagenomes using genomes from NCBI's RefSeq database based on the list of actual viruses found in previously published metagenomes. Three different assembly strategies, spanning six assemblers, were tested for performance: overlap-layout-consensus algorithms Newbler, Celera and Minimo; de Bruijn graphs algorithms Velvet and MetaVelvet; and read probabilistic model Genovo. The performance of the assemblies was measured by the length of resulting contigs (using N50), the percentage of reads assembled and the overall accuracy when comparing against corresponding reference genomes. Additionally, the number of chimeras per contig and the lowest common ancestor were estimated in order to assess the effect of assembling on taxonomic and functional annotation. The functional classification of the reads was evaluated by counting the reads that correctly matched the functional data previously reported for the original genomes and calculating the number of over-represented functional categories in chimeric contigs. The sensitivity and specificity of tBLASTx, PhymmBL and the k-mer frequencies were measured by accurate predictions when comparing simulated reads against the NCBI Virus genomes RefSeq database.

conclusionsAssembling improves functional annotation by increasing accurate assignations and decreasing ambiguous hits between viruses and bacteria. However, the success is limited by the chimeric contigs occurring at all taxonomic levels. The assembler and its parameters should be selected based on the focus of each study. Minimo's non-chimeric contigs and Genovo's long contigs excelled in taxonomy assignation and functional annotation, respectively.tBLASTx stood out as the best approach for taxonomic annotation for virus identification. PhymmBL proved useful in datasets in which no related sequences are present as it uses genomic features that may help identify distant taxa. The k-frequencies underperformed in all viral datasets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, GeneticMetagenomicsBacteriaCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyComputer SimulationContig MappingHumansInternetIntestinesPrincipal Component AnalysisUser-Computer InterfaceViruses

Identifiers

PMID24438450
PMCPMC3901335
OpenAlexW2100896078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.