Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32723290›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020

Evaluating metagenomics tools for genome binning with real metagenomic datasets and CAMI datasets.

Yi Yue, Hao Huang, Zhao Qi, Hui-Min Dou, Xin-Yi Liu, Tian-Fei Han, Yue Chen, Xiang-Jun Song, You-Hua Zhang, Jian Tu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Analysis of metagenomic data.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Visualizing metagenomic and metatranscriptomic data: A comprehensive review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    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

10 authors.

Yi YueAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China. yyyue@ahau.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6520-7171
Hao HuangAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6803-3210
Zhao QiAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.
Hui-Min DouSchool of Information & Computer, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.
Xin-Yi LiuSchool of Information & Computer, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.
Tian-Fei HanAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.
Yue ChenAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.
Xiang-Jun SongAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.
You-Hua ZhangAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China. zhangyh@ahau.edu.cn.
Jian TuAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pathobiology and Disease Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China. tujian1980@126.com.

Funding

Construction of Biology Peak Discipline in Anhui Province 03019001National Natural Science Foundation of China 31772707National Natural Science Foundation of China 31972642
6 · The paper itself

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

Databases, GeneticAnimalsChickensGenome, MicrobialMachine LearningMetagenomeMetagenomicsSequence Analysis, DNAUnsupervised Machine LearningBenchmarkingClusteringComparisonGenome binningMetagenomics

Identifiers

PMID32723290
PMCPMC7469296

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.