Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36760501›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

Evaluation of computational phage detection tools for metagenomic datasets.

Kenneth E Schackart, Jessica B Graham, Alise J Ponsero, Bonnie L Hurwitz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Survival and spread of engineeredApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Four NovelViruses · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kenneth E SchackartDepartment of Biosystems Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Jessica B GrahamBIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Alise J PonseroDepartment of Biosystems Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Bonnie L HurwitzDepartment of Biosystems Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
University of Arizona · USUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

MARC/Biomedical Research and Training Program at the University of ArizonaT34GM008718 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI MIRANDA, KATRINA M. · 1999 to 2021
$8.6M
Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Biomedical SystemsT32GM132008 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI Ryan Gutenkunst, JOANNA MASEL · 2019 to 2026
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM132008NIGMS NIH HHS T34 GM008718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As new computational tools for detecting phage in metagenomes are being rapidly developed, a critical need has emerged to develop systematic benchmarks. Methods: In this study, we surveyed 19 metagenomic phage detection tools, 9 of which could be installed and run at scale. Those 9 tools were assessed on several benchmark challenges. Fragmented reference genomes are used to assess the effects of fragment length, low viral content, phage taxonomy, robustness to eukaryotic contamination, and computational resource usage. Simulated metagenomes are used to assess the effects of sequencing and assembly quality on the tool performances. Finally, real human gut metagenomes and viromes are used to assess the differences and similarities in the phage communities predicted by the tools. Results: We find that the various tools yield strikingly different results. Generally, tools that use a homology approach (VirSorter, MARVEL, viralVerify, VIBRANT, and VirSorter2) demonstrate low false positive rates and robustness to eukaryotic contamination. Conversely, tools that use a sequence composition approach (VirFinder, DeepVirFinder, Seeker), and MetaPhinder, have higher sensitivity, including to phages with less representation in reference databases. These differences led to widely differing predicted phage communities in human gut metagenomes, with nearly 80% of contigs being marked as phage by at least one tool and a maximum overlap of 38.8% between any two tools. While the results were more consistent among the tools on viromes, the differences in results were still significant, with a maximum overlap of 60.65%. Discussion: Importantly, the benchmark datasets developed in this study are publicly available and reusable to enable the future comparability of new tools developed.

Indexed as

bacteriophagebenchmarkcomputational biologymetagenomemicrobiomevirome

Identifiers

PMID36760501
PMCPMC9902911
OpenAlexW4318756379

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.