ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020
Evaluating metagenomics tools for genome binning with real metagenomic datasets and CAMI datasets.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-quality metagenome-assembled genomes of carbon-degrading, sulfate-reducing, and sulfur-oxidizing Acidobacteriota from Sub-Antarctic Marion Island soils.Microbiology resource announcements · 2026Article
- Electrogenic CH4 oxidation on a bioanode: putative extracellular electron transport system in Methylobacter sp.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive benchmarking of metagenomic binning tools reveals key factors for improved genome recovery.Nature communications · 2026Article
- End-to-end evaluation of pipelines for metagenome-assembled genomes reveals hidden performance gaps.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- 2Pipe starts with a question: matching you with the correct pipeline for MAG reconstruction.mSystems · 2026Review
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Mitigation and detection of putative microbial contaminant reads from long-read metagenomic datasets.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- Modular automated high-throughput isolation and phylogenetic identification of bacteria from complex microbiomes.iMetaOmics · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Enables Alignment-Free Distance Calculation and Phylogenetic Placement Using k-Mer Frequencies.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- De novo peptide databases enable protein-based stable isotope probing of microbial communities with up to species-level resolution.Environmental microbiome · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Assembly Strategy of a Fungal Genome from Metagenomic Data:Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- PCVR: a pre-trained contextualized visual representation for DNA sequence classification.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Benchmarking metagenomic binning tools on real datasets across sequencing platforms and binning modes.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Bioinformatic approaches to blood and tissue microbiome analyses: challenges and perspectives.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Antiviral defense systems in the rumen microbiome.mSystems · 2025Article
- Article
- Analysis of metagenomic data.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025Article
- Evaluation of shotgun metagenomics as a diagnostic tool for infectious gastroenteritis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Microbial communities associated with marine sponges from diverse geographic locations harbor biosynthetic novelty.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2024Article
- Visualizing metagenomic and metatranscriptomic data: A comprehensive review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShotgun metagenomics based on untargeted sequencing can explore the taxonomic profile and the function of unknown microorganisms in samples, and complement the shortage of amplicon sequencing. Binning assembled sequences into individual groups, which represent microbial genomes, is the key step and a major challenge in metagenomic research. Both supervised and unsupervised machine learning methods have been employed in binning. Genome binning belonging to unsupervised method clusters contigs into individual genome bins by machine learning methods without the assistance of any reference databases. So far a lot of genome binning tools have emerged. Evaluating these genome tools is of great significance to microbiological research. In this study, we evaluate 15 genome binning tools containing 12 original binning tools and 3 refining binning tools by comparing the performance of these tools on chicken gut metagenomic datasets and the first CAMI challenge datasets.
resultsFor chicken gut metagenomic datasets, original genome binner MetaBat, Groopm2 and Autometa performed better than other original binner, and MetaWrap combined the binning results of them generated the most high-quality genome bins. For CAMI datasets, Groopm2 achieved the highest purity (> 0.9) with good completeness (> 0.8), and reconstructed the most high-quality genome bins among original genome binners. Compared with Groopm2, MetaBat2 had similar performance with higher completeness and lower purity. Genome refining binners DASTool predicated the most high-quality genome bins among all genomes binners. Most genome binner performed well for unique strains. Nonetheless, reconstructing common strains still is a substantial challenge for all genome binner.
conclusionsIn conclusion, we tested a set of currently available, state-of-the-art metagenomics hybrid binning tools and provided a guide for selecting tools for metagenomic binning by comparing range of purity, completeness, adjusted rand index, and the number of high-quality reconstructed bins. Furthermore, available information for future binning strategy were concluded.
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.