Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34130621›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021

Simulation study and comparative evaluation of viral contiguous sequence identification tools.

Cody Glickman, Jo Hendrix, Michael Strong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Picobirnavirus: how do you find where it's hiding?Critical reviews in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. The respiratory tract virome: unravelling the role of viral dark matter in respiratory health and disease.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cody GlickmanCenter for Genes, Environment, and Health, National Jewish Health, 1400 Jackson Street, Denver, CO, 80206, USA. cody.glickman@cuanschutz.edu.
Jo HendrixCenter for Genes, Environment, and Health, National Jewish Health, 1400 Jackson Street, Denver, CO, 80206, USA.
Michael StrongCenter for Genes, Environment, and Health, National Jewish Health, 1400 Jackson Street, Denver, CO, 80206, USA.
National Jewish Health · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViruses, including bacteriophages, are important components of environmental and human associated microbial communities. Viruses can act as extracellular reservoirs of bacterial genes, can mediate microbiome dynamics, and can influence the virulence of clinical pathogens. Various targeted metagenomic analysis techniques detect viral sequences, but these methods often exclude large and genome integrated viruses. In this study, we evaluate and compare the ability of nine state-of-the-art bioinformatic tools, including Vibrant, VirSorter, VirSorter2, VirFinder, DeepVirFinder, MetaPhinder, Kraken 2, Phybrid, and a BLAST search using identified proteins from the Earth Virome Pipeline to identify viral contiguous sequences (contigs) across simulated metagenomes with different read distributions, taxonomic compositions, and complexities.

resultsOf the tools tested in this study, VirSorter achieved the best F1 score while Vibrant had the highest average F1 score at predicting integrated prophages. Though less balanced in its precision and recall, Kraken2 had the highest average precision by a substantial margin. We introduced the machine learning tool, Phybrid, which demonstrated an improvement in average F1 score over tools such as MetaPhinder. The tool utilizes machine learning with both gene content and nucleotide features. The addition of nucleotide features improves the precision and recall compared to the gene content features alone.Viral identification by all tools was not impacted by underlying read distribution but did improve with contig length. Tool performance was inversely related to taxonomic complexity and varied by the phage host. For instance, Rhizobium and Enterococcus phages were identified consistently by the tools; whereas, Neisseria prophage sequences were commonly missed in this study.

conclusionThis study benchmarked the performance of nine state-of-the-art bioinformatic tools to identify viral contigs across different simulation conditions. This study explored the ability of the tools to identify integrated prophage elements traditionally excluded from targeted sequencing approaches. Our comprehensive analysis of viral identification tools to assess their performance in a variety of situations provides valuable insights to viral researchers looking to mine viral elements from publicly available metagenomic data.

Indexed as

BacteriophagesMicrobiotaVirusesGenome, ViralHumansMetagenomeMetagenomicsBacteriophageMetagenomicsProphageTool comparisonVirus

Identifiers

PMID34130621
PMCPMC8207588
OpenAlexW3137491981

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.