ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017
CoMet: a workflow using contig coverage and composition for binning a metagenomic sample with high precision.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Profiling of Pharmaceutical Sludge Microbiome, Resistome and Secondary Metabolites Using Metagenomics.Indian journal of microbiology · 2025Article
- A review of neural networks for metagenomic binning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Solving genomic puzzles: computational methods for metagenomic binning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Genome analysis of Parmales, the sister group of diatoms, reveals the evolutionary specialization of diatoms from phago-mixotrophs to photoautotrophs.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Reference-based read clustering improves theComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- A Deep Clustering-based Novel Approach for Binning of Metagenomics Data.Current genomics · 2022Article
- Constructing metagenome-assembled genomes for almost all components in a real bacterial consortium for binning benchmarking.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Article
- MetaConClust - Unsupervised Binning of Metagenomics Data using Consensus Clustering.Current genomics · 2022Article
- Improving metagenomic binning results with overlapped bins using assembly graphs.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2021Article
- Evaluating metagenomics tools for genome binning with real metagenomic datasets and CAMI datasets.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- A bioinformatics potpourri.BMC genomics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.