Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36401288›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2022

Investigating the impact of database choice on the accuracy of metagenomic read classification for the rumen microbiome.

Rebecca H Smith, Laura Glendinning, Alan W Walker, Mick Watson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Picobirnavirus: how do you find where it's hiding?Critical reviews in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. International journal of microbiology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Microbiota and kidney disease: the road ahead.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca H SmithThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. r.h.smith@ed.ac.uk.
Laura GlendinningThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
Alan W WalkerRowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Mick WatsonThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
Roslin Institute · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S006680/1EASTBIO (East of Scotland Bioscience Doctoral Training Partnership DTP, funded by BBSRC) BB/M010996/1UK Research and Innovation BBS/E/D/30002276
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbiome analysis is quickly moving towards high-throughput methods such as metagenomic sequencing. Accurate taxonomic classification of metagenomic data relies on reference sequence databases, and their associated taxonomy. However, for understudied environments such as the rumen microbiome many sequences will be derived from novel or uncultured microbes that are not present in reference databases. As a result, taxonomic classification of metagenomic data from understudied environments may be inaccurate. To assess the accuracy of taxonomic read classification, this study classified metagenomic data that had been simulated from cultured rumen microbial genomes from the Hungate collection. To assess the impact of reference databases on the accuracy of taxonomic classification, the data was classified with Kraken 2 using several reference databases. We found that the choice and composition of reference database significantly impacted on taxonomic classification results, and accuracy. In particular, NCBI RefSeq proved to be a poor choice of database. Our results indicate that inaccurate read classification is likely to be a significant problem, affecting all studies that use insufficient reference databases. We observed that adding cultured reference genomes from the rumen to the reference database greatly improved classification rate and accuracy. We also demonstrated that metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) have the potential to further enhance classification accuracy by representing uncultivated microbes, sequences of which would otherwise be unclassified or incorrectly classified. However, classification accuracy was strongly dependent on the taxonomic labels assigned to these MAGs. We therefore highlight the importance of accurate reference taxonomic information and suggest that, with formal taxonomic lineages, MAGs have the potential to improve classification rate and accuracy, particularly in environments such as the rumen that are understudied or contain many novel genomes.

Indexed as

MetagenomeMetagenome-assembled genomesMicrobiomeRead classificationReference databasesRumenTaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID36401288
PMCPMC9673341
OpenAlexW4309506895

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.