ArticlePeerJ2022
Benchmarking metagenomics classifiers on ancient viral DNA: a simulation study.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining filtering criteria of Kraken family of tools for accurate taxonomic profiling of ancient metagenomic data.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Quick Analysis of Sedimentary Ancient DNA Using quicksand.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Real-time analysis and visualization of nanopore metagenomic samples with MARTi.Genome research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the taxonomic classification tools and visualizers for metagenomic analysis using the Oxford nanopore sequence database.Journal of applied genetics · 2025Article
- Wastewater Metavirome Diversity: Exploring Replicate Inconsistencies and Bioinformatic Tool Disparities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Impact of database choice and confidence score on the performance of taxonomic classification using Kraken2.aBIOTECH · 2024Article
- Filtering out the noise: metagenomic classifiers optimize ancient DNA mapping.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Benchmarking Metagenomic Classifiers on Simulated Ancient and Modern Metagenomic Data.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- A Case Study for the Recovery of Authentic Microbial Ancient DNA from Soil Samples.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Review
- Genomics of Ancient Pathogens: First Advances and Prospects.Biochemistry. Biokhimiia · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.