Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34900140›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2021

A review of computational tools for generating metagenome-assembled genomes from metagenomic sequencing data.

Chao Yang, Debajyoti Chowdhury, Zhenmiao Zhang, William K Cheung, Aiping Lu, Zhaoxiang Bian, Lu Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

110 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Benchmarking shotgun metagenomics.Nature microbiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Bioinformatics advances · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. International journal of microbiology · 2026
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

50 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

7 authors.

Chao YangDepartment of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Debajyoti ChowdhuryComputational Medicine Lab, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Zhenmiao ZhangDepartment of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
William K CheungDepartment of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Aiping LuComputational Medicine Lab, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Zhaoxiang BianInstitute of Brain and Gut Research, School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Lu ZhangDepartment of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomic sequencing provides a culture-independent avenue to investigate the complex microbial communities by constructing metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). A MAG represents a microbial genome by a group of sequences from genome assembly with similar characteristics. It enables us to identify novel species and understand their potential functions in a dynamic ecosystem. Many computational tools have been developed to construct and annotate MAGs from metagenomic sequencing, however, there is a prominent gap to comprehensively introduce their background and practical performance. In this paper, we have thoroughly investigated the computational tools designed for both upstream and downstream analyses, including metagenome assembly, metagenome binning, gene prediction, functional annotation, taxonomic classification, and profiling. We have categorized the commonly used tools into unique groups based on their functional background and introduced the underlying core algorithms and associated information to demonstrate a comparative outlook. Furthermore, we have emphasized the computational requisition and offered guidance to the users to select the most efficient tools. Finally, we have indicated current limitations, potential solutions, and future perspectives for further improving the tools of MAG construction and annotation. We believe that our work provides a consolidated resource for the current stage of MAG studies and shed light on the future development of more effective MAG analysis tools on metagenomic sequencing.

Indexed as

CNN, convolutional neural networkDBG, De Bruijn graphGene functional annotationGene predictionGenome assemblyGTDB, Genome Taxonomy DatabaseHMM, Hidden Markov ModelKEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and GenomesLCA, lowest common ancestorLPA, label propagation algorithmMAGs, metagenome-assembled genomesMetagenome-assembled genomesMetagenome binningMetagenomic sequencingMicrobial abundance profilingOLC, overlap-layout consensusONT, Oxford Nanopore TechnologiesORFs, open reading framesPacBio, Pacific BiosciencesQC, quality controlSLR, synthetic long readsTaxonomic classificationTNFs, tetranucleotide frequencies

Identifiers

PMID34900140
PMCPMC8640167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.