Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35356467›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Benchmarking metagenomics classifiers on ancient viral DNA: a simulation study.

Yami Ommar Arizmendi Cárdenas, Samuel Neuenschwander, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Quick Analysis of Sedimentary Ancient DNA Using quicksand.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Wastewater Metavirome Diversity: Exploring Replicate Inconsistencies and Bioinformatic Tool Disparities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yami Ommar Arizmendi CárdenasDepartment of Computational Biology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Samuel NeuenschwanderDepartment of Computational Biology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Anna-Sapfo MalaspinasDepartment of Computational Biology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics · CHUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Owing to technological advances in ancient DNA, it is now possible to sequence viruses from the past to track down their origin and evolution. However, ancient DNA data is considerably more degraded and contaminated than modern data making the identification of ancient viral genomes particularly challenging. Several methods to characterise the modern microbiome (and, within this, the virome) have been developed; in particular, tools that assign sequenced reads to specific taxa in order to characterise the organisms present in a sample of interest. While these existing tools are routinely used in modern data, their performance when applied to ancient microbiome data to screen for ancient viruses remains unknown. In this work, we conducted an extensive simulation study using public viral sequences to establish which tool is the most suitable to screen ancient samples for human DNA viruses. We compared the performance of four widely used classifiers, namely Centrifuge, Kraken2, DIAMOND and MetaPhlAn2, in correctly assigning sequencing reads to the corresponding viruses. To do so, we simulated reads by adding noise typical of ancient DNA to a set of publicly available human DNA viral sequences and to the human genome. We fragmented the DNA into different lengths, added sequencing error and C to T and G to A deamination substitutions at the read termini. Then we measured the resulting sensitivity and precision for all classifiers. Across most simulations, more than 228 out of the 233 simulated viruses were recovered by Centrifuge, Kraken2 and DIAMOND, in contrast to MetaPhlAn2 which recovered only around one third. Overall, Centrifuge and Kraken2 had the best performance with the highest values of sensitivity and precision. We found that deamination damage had little impact on the performance of the classifiers, less than the sequencing error and the length of the reads. Since Centrifuge can handle short reads (in contrast to DIAMOND and Kraken2 with default settings) and since it achieve the highest sensitivity and precision at the species level across all the simulations performed, it is our recommended tool. Regardless of the tool used, our simulations indicate that, for ancient human studies, users should use strict filters to remove all reads of potential human origin. Finally, we recommend that users verify which species are present in the database used, as it might happen that default databases lack sequences for viruses of interest.

Indexed as

DNA, ViralVirusesBenchmarkingDNA, AncientHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomicsSequence Analysis, DNADNA, AncientDNA, ViralAncient DNAClassifiersEpidemiologyGenomicsPaleomicrobiologyPrecisionSensitivitySimulationsTaxonomic binningVirome

Identifiers

PMID35356467
PMCPMC8958974
OpenAlexW4226125465

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.