Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29372115›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

Benchmark datasets for phylogenomic pipeline validation, applications for foodborne pathogen surveillance.

Ruth E Timme, Hugh Rand, Martin Shumway, Eija K Trees, Mustafa Simmons, Richa Agarwala, Steven Davis, Glenn E Tillman, Stephanie Defibaugh-Chavez, Heather A Carleton and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Probing Genomic Diversity ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. GenBank.Nucleic acids research · 2020
    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

12 authors.

Ruth E TimmeCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States of America.
Hugh RandCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States of America.
Martin ShumwayNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Eija K TreesEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Mustafa SimmonsFood Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Richa AgarwalaNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Steven DavisCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States of America.
Glenn E TillmanFood Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Stephanie Defibaugh-ChavezFood Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Wahington, D.C., United States of America.
Heather A CarletonEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
William A KlimkeNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Lee S KatzEnteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs next generation sequence technology has advanced, there have been parallel advances in genome-scale analysis programs for determining evolutionary relationships as proxies for epidemiological relationship in public health. Most new programs skip traditional steps of ortholog determination and multi-gene alignment, instead identifying variants across a set of genomes, then summarizing results in a matrix of single-nucleotide polymorphisms or alleles for standard phylogenetic analysis. However, public health authorities need to document the performance of these methods with appropriate and comprehensive datasets so they can be validated for specific purposes, e.g., outbreak surveillance. Here we propose a set of benchmark datasets to be used for comparison and validation of phylogenomic pipelines.

methodsWe identified four well-documented foodborne pathogen events in which the epidemiology was concordant with routine phylogenomic analyses (reference-based SNP and wgMLST approaches). These are ideal benchmark datasets, as the trees, WGS data, and epidemiological data for each are all in agreement. We have placed these sequence data, sample metadata, and "known" phylogenetic trees in publicly-accessible databases and developed a standard descriptive spreadsheet format describing each dataset. To facilitate easy downloading of these benchmarks, we developed an automated script that uses the standard descriptive spreadsheet format.

resultsOur "outbreak" benchmark datasets represent the four major foodborne bacterial pathogens ( DISCUSSION: These five benchmark datasets will help standardize comparison of current and future phylogenomic pipelines, and facilitate important cross-institutional collaborations. Our work is part of a global effort to provide collaborative infrastructure for sequence data and analytic tools-we welcome additional benchmark datasets in our recommended format, and, if relevant, we will add these on our GitHub site. Together, these datasets, dataset format, and the underlying GitHub infrastructure present a recommended path for worldwide standardization of phylogenomic pipelines.

Indexed as

Benchmark datasetsE. coliFoodborne outbreakFood safetyListeriaPhylogenomicsSalmonellaValidationWGS

Identifiers

PMID29372115
PMCPMC5782805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.