ArticlePeerJ2020
Evaluation of computational methods for human microbiome analysis using simulated data.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of simulation and reference catalogues on the evaluation of taxonomic profiling pipelines.Microbial genomics · 2025Article
- Metagenomic profiling pipelines improve taxonomic classification for 16S amplicon sequencing data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Conventional tobacco products harbor unique and heterogenous microbiomes.Environmental research · 2023Article
- Challenges and insights in the exploration of the low abundance human ocular surface microbiome.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- SEQ2MGS: an effective tool for generating realistic artificial metagenomes from the existing sequencing data.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Viroscope: Plant viral diagnosis from high-throughput sequencing data using biologically-informed genome assembly coverage.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Comparative Analysis of Metagenomics and Metataxonomics for the Characterization of Vermicompost Microbiomes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Whole-Genome Sequencing Analysis to Identify Infection with Multiple Species of Nontuberculous Mycobacteria.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The oralome and its dysbiosis: New insights into oral microbiome-host interactions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- Novel technologies to characterize and engineer the microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease.Gut microbesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur understanding of the composition, function, and health implications of human microbiota has been advanced by high-throughput sequencing and the development of new genomic analyses. However, trade-offs among alternative strategies for the acquisition and analysis of sequence data remain understudied.
methodsWe assessed eight popular taxonomic profiling pipelines; MetaPhlAn2, metaMix, PathoScope 2.0, Sigma, Kraken, ConStrains, Centrifuge and Taxator-tk, against a battery of metagenomic datasets simulated from real data. The metagenomic datasets were modeled on 426 complete or permanent draft genomes stored in the Human Oral Microbiome Database and were designed to simulate various experimental conditions, both in the design of a putative experiment; read length (75-1,000 bp reads), sequence depth (100K-10M), and in metagenomic composition; number of species present (10, 100, 426), species distribution. The sensitivity and specificity of each of the pipelines under various scenarios were measured. We also estimated the relative root mean square error and average relative error to assess the abundance estimates produced by different methods. Additional datasets were generated for five of the pipelines to simulate the presence within a metagenome of an unreferenced species, closely related to other referenced species. Additional datasets were also generated in order to measure computational time on datasets of ever-increasing sequencing depth (up to 6 × 10
resultsTesting of eight pipelines against 144 simulated metagenomic datasets initially produced 1,104 discrete results. Pipelines using a marker gene strategy; MetaPhlAn2 and ConStrains, were overall less sensitive, than other pipelines; with the notable exception of Taxator-tk. This difference in sensitivity was largely made up in terms of runtime, significantly lower than more sensitive pipelines that rely on whole-genome alignments such as PathoScope2.0. However, pipelines that used strategies to speed-up alignment between genomic references and metagenomic reads, such as kmerization, were able to combine both high sensitivity and low run time, as is the case with Kraken and Centrifuge. Absent species genomes in the database mostly led to assignment of reads to the most closely related species available in all pipelines. Our results therefore suggest that taxonomic profilers that use kmerization have largely superseded those that use gene markers, coupling low run times with high sensitivity and specificity. Taxonomic profilers using more time-consuming read reassignment, such as PathoScope 2.0, provided the most sensitive profiles under common metagenomic sequencing scenarios. All the results described and discussed in this paper can be visualized using the dedicated R Shiny application (https://github.com/microgenomics/HumanMicrobiomeAnalysis). All of our datasets, pipelines and results are made available through the GitHub repository for future benchmarking.
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.