Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37027361›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

The selection of software and database for metagenomics sequence analysis impacts the outcome of microbial profiling and pathogen detection.

Ruijie Xu, Sreekumari Rajeev, Liliana C M Salvador

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Computational Metagenomics: State of the Art.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Wastewater Metavirome Diversity: Exploring Replicate Inconsistencies and Bioinformatic Tool Disparities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Ruijie XuInstitute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3364-1587
Sreekumari RajeevDepartment of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6600-9102
Liliana C M SalvadorInstitute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8472-1179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing analysis is widely used for microbial profiling of biological specimens and pathogen detection. However, very little is known about the technical biases caused by the choice of analysis software and databases on the biological specimen. In this study, we evaluated different direct read shotgun metagenomics taxonomic profiling software to characterize the microbial compositions of simulated mice gut microbiome samples and of biological samples collected from wild rodents across multiple taxonomic levels. Using ten of the most widely used metagenomics software and four different databases, we demonstrated that obtaining an accurate species-level microbial profile using the current direct read metagenomics profiling software is still a challenging task. We also showed that the discrepancies in results when different databases and software were used could lead to significant variations in the distinct microbial taxa classified, in the characterizations of the microbial communities, and in the differentially abundant taxa identified. Differences in database contents and read profiling algorithms are the main contributors for these discrepancies. The inclusion of host genomes and of genomes of the interested taxa in the databases is important for increasing the accuracy of profiling. Our analysis also showed that software included in this study differed in their ability to detect the presence of Leptospira, a major zoonotic pathogen of one health importance, especially at the species level resolution. We concluded that using different databases and software combinations can result in confounding biological conclusions in microbial profiling. Our study warrants that software and database selection must be based on the purpose of the study.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsMicrobiotaAlgorithmsAnimalsMetagenomeMiceSequence Analysis, DNASoftware

Identifiers

PMID37027361
PMCPMC10081788

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.