Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29297295›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

CoMet: a workflow using contig coverage and composition for binning a metagenomic sample with high precision.

Damayanthi Herath, Sen-Lin Tang, Kshitij Tandon, David Ackland, Saman Kumara Halgamuge

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A review of neural networks for metagenomic binning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Reference-based read clustering improves theComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A bioinformatics potpourri.BMC genomics · 2018
    Article
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.

Damayanthi HerathDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, 3010, Australia. damayanthi@ce.pdn.ac.lk.
Sen-Lin TangBiodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Nan-Kang, Taipei, 11529, Taiwan.
Kshitij TandonBiodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Nan-Kang, Taipei, 11529, Taiwan.
David AcklandDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Saman Kumara HalgamugeResearch School of Engineering, College of Engineering and Computer Science, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT, 2601, Australia.
Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica · TWUniversity of Melbourne · AUAustralian National University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn metagenomics, the separation of nucleotide sequences belonging to an individual or closely matched populations is termed binning. Binning helps the evaluation of underlying microbial population structure as well as the recovery of individual genomes from a sample of uncultivable microbial organisms. Both supervised and unsupervised learning methods have been employed in binning; however, characterizing a metagenomic sample containing multiple strains remains a significant challenge. In this study, we designed and implemented a new workflow, Coverage and composition based binning of Metagenomes (CoMet), for binning contigs in a single metagenomic sample. CoMet utilizes coverage values and the compositional features of metagenomic contigs. The binning strategy in CoMet includes the initial grouping of contigs in guanine-cytosine (GC) content-coverage space and refinement of bins in tetranucleotide frequencies space in a purely unsupervised manner. With CoMet, the clustering algorithm DBSCAN is employed for binning contigs. The performances of CoMet were compared against four existing approaches for binning a single metagenomic sample, including MaxBin, Metawatt, MyCC (default) and MyCC (coverage) using multiple datasets including a sample comprised of multiple strains.

resultsBinning methods based on both compositional features and coverages of contigs had higher performances than the method which is based only on compositional features of contigs. CoMet yielded higher or comparable precision in comparison to the existing binning methods on benchmark datasets of varying complexities. MyCC (coverage) had the highest ranking score in F1-score. However, the performances of CoMet were higher than MyCC (coverage) on the dataset containing multiple strains. Furthermore, CoMet recovered contigs of more species and was 18 - 39% higher in precision than the compared existing methods in discriminating species from the sample of multiple strains. CoMet resulted in higher precision than MyCC (default) and MyCC (coverage) on a real metagenome.

conclusionsThe approach proposed with CoMet for binning contigs, improves the precision of binning while characterizing more species in a single metagenomic sample and in a sample containing multiple strains. The F1-scores obtained from different binning strategies vary with different datasets; however, CoMet yields the highest F1-score with a sample comprised of multiple strains.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsContig MappingWorkflowBase SequenceCluster AnalysisDatabases, GeneticGenomeHumansMetagenomeMetagenomicsBinningContig compositionContig coverageDBSCAN algorithmMetagenomics

Identifiers

PMID29297295
PMCPMC5751405
OpenAlexW2778318416

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.