Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33996285›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Robustness analysis of metabolic predictions in algal microbial communities based on different annotation pipelines.

Elham Karimi, Enora Geslain, Arnaud Belcour, Clémence Frioux, Méziane Aïte, Anne Siegel, Erwan Corre, Simon M Dittami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Elham KarimiUMR8227, Integrative Biology of Marine Models, Sorbonne Université/CNRS, Station Biologique de Roscoff, Roscoff, France.
Enora GeslainUMR8227, Integrative Biology of Marine Models, Sorbonne Université/CNRS, Station Biologique de Roscoff, Roscoff, France.
Arnaud BelcourEquipe Dyliss, Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, Rennes, France.
Clémence FriouxInria, INRAE, CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux, Talence, France.
Méziane AïteEquipe Dyliss, Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, Rennes, France.
Anne SiegelEquipe Dyliss, Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, Rennes, France.
Erwan CorreFR2424, Sorbonne Université/CNRS, Station Biologique de Roscoff, Roscoff, France.
Simon M DittamiUMR8227, Integrative Biology of Marine Models, Sorbonne Université/CNRS, Station Biologique de Roscoff, Roscoff, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals, plants, and algae rely on symbiotic microorganisms for their development and functioning. Genome sequencing and genomic analyses of these microorganisms provide opportunities to construct metabolic networks and to analyze the metabolism of the symbiotic communities they constitute. Genome-scale metabolic network reconstructions rest on information gained from genome annotation. As there are multiple annotation pipelines available, the question arises to what extent differences in annotation pipelines impact outcomes of these analyses. Here, we compare five commonly used pipelines (Prokka, MaGe, IMG, DFAST, RAST) from predicted annotation features (coding sequences, Enzyme Commission numbers, hypothetical proteins) to the metabolic network-based analysis of symbiotic communities (biochemical reactions, producible compounds, and selection of minimal complementary bacterial communities). While Prokka and IMG produced the most extensive networks, RAST and DFAST networks produced the fewest false positives and the most connected networks with the fewest dead-end metabolites. Our results underline differences between the outputs of the tested pipelines at all examined levels, with small differences in the draft metabolic networks resulting in the selection of different microbial consortia to expand the metabolic capabilities of the algal host. However, the consortia generated yielded similar predicted producible compounds and could therefore be considered functionally interchangeable. This contrast between selected communities and community functions depending on the annotation pipeline needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of metabolic complementarity analyses. In the future, experimental validation of bioinformatic predictions will likely be crucial to both evaluate and refine the pipelines and needs to be coupled with increased efforts to expand and improve annotations in reference databases.

Indexed as

Functional annotationGene predictionGenome-scale metabolic networksHolobiontsMetabolic complementary analysesMetabolic exchanges

Identifiers

PMID33996285
PMCPMC8106915

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.