ArticlePloS one2020
Survey of metaproteomics software tools for functional microbiome analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metagenomic Tools as Predictive Approaches to Decipher Soil and Rhizosphere Microbial Communities and Their Functions for Sustainable Agriculture.International journal of genomics · 2026Review
- Biological Function Assignment across Taxonomic Levels in Mass-Spectrometry-Based Metaproteomics via a Modified Expectation Maximization Algorithm.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- The microbiologist's guide to metaproteomics.iMeta · 2025Review
- Comparative and Functional Analysis of Exosomal microRNAs During Semelparous Reproduction in Ayu Fish (Journal of extracellular biology · 2025Article
- Integrating the milk microbiome signatures in mastitis: milk-omics and functional implications.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities Proteome Informatics Research Group Study on Metaproteomics (iPRG-2020).Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2023Article
- The Cytotoxic Properties of Extreme Fungi's Bioactive Components-An Updated Metabolic and Omics Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Meta4P: A User-Friendly Tool to Parse Label-Free Quantitative Metaproteomic Data and Taxonomic/Functional Annotations.Journal of proteome research · 2023Article
- Metaproteomics to understand how microbiota function: The crystal ball predicts a promising future.Environmental microbiology · 2023Article
- Functional and Taxonomic Traits of the Gut Microbiota in Type 1 Diabetes Children at the Onset: A Metaproteomic Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- The community ecology perspective of omics data.Microbiome · 2022Article
- Multi-Omics Strategies for Investigating the Microbiome in Toxicology Research.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2022Review
- Considerations for constructing a protein sequence database for metaproteomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Review
- Inferring early-life host and microbiome functions by mass spectrometry-based metaproteomics and metabolomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Review
- Sample Processing for Metaproteomic Analysis of Human Gut Microbiota.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Critical Assessment of MetaProteome Investigation (CAMPI): a multi-laboratory comparison of established workflows.Nature communications · 2021Article
- New software tools, databases, and resources in metabolomics: updates from 2020.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2021Review
- Tutorial: assessing metagenomics software with the CAMI benchmarking toolkit.Nature protocols · 2021Review
- Five key aspects of metaproteomics as a tool to understand functional interactions in host-associated microbiomes.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To gain a thorough appreciation of microbiome dynamics, researchers characterize the functional relevance of expressed microbial genes or proteins. This can be accomplished through metaproteomics, which characterizes the protein expression of microbiomes. Several software tools exist for analyzing microbiomes at the functional level by measuring their combined proteome-level response to environmental perturbations. In this survey, we explore the performance of six available tools, to enable researchers to make informed decisions regarding software choice based on their research goals. Tandem mass spectrometry-based proteomic data obtained from dental caries plaque samples grown with and without sucrose in paired biofilm reactors were used as representative data for this evaluation. Microbial peptides from one sample pair were identified by the X! tandem search algorithm via SearchGUI and subjected to functional analysis using software tools including eggNOG-mapper, MEGAN5, MetaGOmics, MetaProteomeAnalyzer (MPA), ProPHAnE, and Unipept to generate functional annotation through Gene Ontology (GO) terms. Among these software tools, notable differences in functional annotation were detected after comparing differentially expressed protein functional groups. Based on the generated GO terms of these tools we performed a peptide-level comparison to evaluate the quality of their functional annotations. A BLAST analysis against the NCBI non-redundant database revealed that the sensitivity and specificity of functional annotation varied between tools. For example, eggNOG-mapper mapped to the most number of GO terms, while Unipept generated more accurate GO terms. Based on our evaluation, metaproteomics researchers can choose the software according to their analytical needs and developers can use the resulting feedback to further optimize their algorithms. To make more of these tools accessible via scalable metaproteomics workflows, eggNOG-mapper and Unipept 4.0 were incorporated into the Galaxy platform.
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.