Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33013732›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2020

Computational Methods for Strain-Level Microbial Detection in Colony and Metagenome Sequencing Data.

Christine Anyansi, Timothy J Straub, Abigail L Manson, Ashlee M Earl, Thomas Abeel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing 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

73 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Metagenomic Assembly and Gene Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Typing ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Christine AnyansiDelft Bioinformatics Lab, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Timothy J StraubInfectious Disease and Microbiome Program, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Abigail L MansonInfectious Disease and Microbiome Program, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Ashlee M EarlInfectious Disease and Microbiome Program, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Thomas AbeelDelft Bioinformatics Lab, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.

Funding

Viral Genomics: evolution, spread, and host interactionsU19AI110818 · NIAID · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI SABETI, PARDIS CHRISTINE · 2014 to 2024
$66.5M
NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI110818
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomic sequencing is a powerful tool for examining the diversity and complexity of microbial communities. Most widely used tools for taxonomic profiling of metagenomic sequence data allow for a species-level overview of the composition. However, individual strains within a species can differ greatly in key genotypic and phenotypic characteristics, such as drug resistance, virulence and growth rate. Therefore, the ability to resolve microbial communities down to the level of individual strains within a species is critical to interpreting metagenomic data for clinical and environmental applications, where identifying a particular strain, or tracking a particular strain across a set of samples, can help aid in clinical diagnosis and treatment, or in characterizing yet unstudied strains across novel environmental locations. Recently published approaches have begun to tackle the problem of resolving strains within a particular species in metagenomic samples. In this review, we present an overview of these new algorithms and their uses, including methods based on assembly reconstruction and methods operating with or without a reference database. While existing metagenomic analysis methods show reasonable performance at the species and higher taxonomic levels, identifying closely related strains within a species presents a bigger challenge, due to the diversity of databases, genetic relatedness, and goals when conducting these analyses. Selection of which metagenomic tool to employ for a specific application should be performed on a case-by case basis as these tools have strengths and weaknesses that affect their performance on specific tasks. A comprehensive benchmark across different use case scenarios is vital to validate performance of these tools on microbial samples. Because strain-level metagenomic analysis is still in its infancy, development of more fine-grained, high-resolution algorithms will continue to be in demand for the future.

Indexed as

bioinformaticsmetagenomicsmethods reviewmicrobial detectionstrain-level classificationwhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID33013732
PMCPMC7507117

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.