ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
CAIM: coverage-based analysis for identification of microbiome.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A Multi-Omics Processing Pipeline (MOPP) for Extracting Taxonomic and Functional Insights from Metaribosome Profiling (metaRibo-Seq) data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Filtering for truth: high-precision taxonomic classification in nanopore shotgun metagenomics data through a KMA-based bioinformatic pipeline (KAPTAIN).BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Calculating fast differential genome coverages among metagenomic sources using micov.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Robust, Open-Source and Automation-Friendly DNA Extraction Protocol for Hologenomic Research.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Precise and scalable metagenomic profiling with sample-tailored minimizer libraries.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate taxonomic profiling of microbial taxa in a metagenomic sample is vital to gain insights into microbial ecology. Recent advancements in sequencing technologies have contributed tremendously toward understanding these microbes at species resolution through a whole shotgun metagenomic approach. In this study, we developed a new bioinformatics tool, coverage-based analysis for identification of microbiome (CAIM), for accurate taxonomic classification and quantification within both long- and short-read metagenomic samples using an alignment-based method. CAIM depends on two different containment techniques to identify species in metagenomic samples using their genome coverage information to filter out false positives rather than the traditional approach of relative abundance. In addition, we propose a nucleotide-count-based abundance estimation, which yield lesser root mean square error than the traditional read-count approach. We evaluated the performance of CAIM on 28 metagenomic mock communities and 2 synthetic datasets by comparing it with other top-performing tools. CAIM maintained a consistently good performance across datasets in identifying microbial taxa and in estimating relative abundances than other tools. CAIM was then applied to a real dataset sequenced on both Nanopore (with and without amplification) and Illumina sequencing platforms and found high similarity of taxonomic profiles between the sequencing platforms. Lastly, CAIM was applied to fecal shotgun metagenomic datasets of 232 colorectal cancer patients and 229 controls obtained from 4 different countries and 44 primary liver cancer patients and 76 controls. The predictive performance of models using the genome-coverage cutoff was better than those using the relative-abundance cutoffs in discriminating colorectal cancer and primary liver cancer patients from healthy controls with a highly confident species markers.
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.