ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023
Evaluation of computational phage detection tools for metagenomic datasets.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phylogeny-agnostic strain-level prediction of phage-host interactions from genomes using machine learning.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Adaptation of Soil Viruses to Salinity Stress: Insights Into Genome Size Expansion and Functional Diversification.Environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Bacteriophage Science: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Applications, Challenges, and Translational Opportunities.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Phage-Microbiota Interactions in the Gut: Implications for Health and Therapeutic Strategies.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Tools and approaches to study the human gut virome: from the bench to bioinformatics.mSystems · 2026Review
- Bacteriophages in gut metagenomes: from analysis to application.Virology journal · 2026Review
- Prophages and their interactions with lytic phages in the human gut microbiota and their impact on microbial diversity, gut health, and disease.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Review
- Identification and profiling of novel metagenome assembled uncultivated virus genomes from human gut.Virology journal · 2025Article
- Survival and spread of engineeredApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- The Aggregated Gut Viral Catalogue (AVrC): A unified resource for exploring the viral diversity of the human gut.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- ProkBERT PhaStyle: accurate phage lifestyle prediction with pretrained genomic language models.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Benchmarking bioinformatic virus identification tools using real-world metagenomic data across biomes.Genome biology · 2024Article
- VIGA: a one-stop tool for eukaryotic virus identification and genome assembly from next-generation-sequencing data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Four NovelViruses · 2023Article
- ProkBERT family: genomic language models for microbiome applications.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Article
- An extended catalog of integrated prophages in the infant and adult fecal microbiome shows high prevalence of lysogeny.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- ViroProfiler: a containerized bioinformatics pipeline for viral metagenomic data analysis.Gut microbesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.