Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085924›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2023

Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data.

Siu Fung Stanley Ho, Nicole E Wheeler, Andrew D Millard, Willem van Schaik

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.1field-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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 1 country.

Siu Fung Stanley HoInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nicole E WheelerInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Andrew D MillardDepartment of Genetics and Genome Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Willem van SchaikInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. w.vanschaik@bham.ac.uk.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S017941/1Medical Research Council MR/T030062/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 215154/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prediction of bacteriophage sequences in metagenomic datasets has become a topic of considerable interest, leading to the development of many novel bioinformatic tools. A comparative analysis of ten state-of-the-art phage identification tools was performed to inform their usage in microbiome research.

methodsArtificial contigs generated from complete RefSeq genomes representing phages, plasmids, and chromosomes, and a previously sequenced mock community containing four phage species, were used to evaluate the precision, recall, and F1 scores of the tools. We also generated a dataset of randomly shuffled sequences to quantify false-positive calls. In addition, a set of previously simulated viromes was used to assess diversity bias in each tool's output.

resultsVIBRANT and VirSorter2 achieved the highest F1 scores (0.93) in the RefSeq artificial contigs dataset, with several other tools also performing well. Kraken2 had the highest F1 score (0.86) in the mock community benchmark by a large margin (0.3 higher than DeepVirFinder in second place), mainly due to its high precision (0.96). Generally, k-mer-based tools performed better than reference similarity tools and gene-based methods. Several tools, most notably PPR-Meta, called a high number of false positives in the randomly shuffled sequences. When analysing the diversity of the genomes that each tool predicted from a virome set, most tools produced a viral genome set that had similar alpha- and beta-diversity patterns to the original population, with Seeker being a notable exception.

conclusionsThis study provides key metrics used to assess performance of phage detection tools, offers a framework for further comparison of additional viral discovery tools, and discusses optimal strategies for using these tools. We highlight that the choice of tool for identification of phages in metagenomic datasets, as well as their parameters, can bias the results and provide pointers for different use case scenarios. We have also made our benchmarking dataset available for download in order to facilitate future comparisons of phage identification tools. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

BacteriophagesMicrobiotaMetagenomeMetagenomicsSequence Analysis, DNABacteriophageBenchmarkingMachine learningMetagenomeMicrobiomePhage

Identifiers

PMID37085924
PMCPMC10120246
OpenAlexW4366742305

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.