Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39402510›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

Metagenomic assemblies tend to break around antibiotic resistance genes.

Anna Abramova, Antti Karkman, Johan Bengtsson-Palme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. GlobalEnvironmental science and ecotechnology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Sulfonamide resistance geneMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Comparative metagenomics using pan-metagenomic graphs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. High-resolution metagenome assembly for modern long reads with myloasm.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    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.

Anna AbramovaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Institute of Biomedicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Guldhedsgatan 10A, Gothenburg, 413 46, Sweden. abramova@chalmers.se.
Antti KarkmanDepartment of Microbiology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Johan Bengtsson-PalmeDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Institute of Biomedicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Guldhedsgatan 10A, Gothenburg, 413 46, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssembly of metagenomic samples can provide essential information about the mobility potential and taxonomic origin of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and inform interventions to prevent further spread of resistant bacteria. However, similar to other conserved regions, such as ribosomal RNA genes and mobile genetic elements, almost identical ARGs typically occur in multiple genomic contexts across different species, representing a considerable challenge for the assembly process. Usually, this results in many fragmented contigs of unclear origin, complicating the risk assessment of ARG detections. To systematically investigate the impact of this issue on detection, quantification and contextualization of ARGs, we evaluated the performance of different assembly approaches, including genomic-, metagenomic- and transcriptomic-specialized assemblers. We quantified recovery and accuracy rates of each tool for ARGs both from in silico spiked metagenomic samples as well as real samples sequenced using both long- and short-read sequencing technologies.

resultsThe results revealed that none of the investigated tools can accurately capture genomic contexts present in samples of high complexity. The transcriptomic assembler Trinity showed a better performance in terms of reconstructing longer and fewer contigs matching unique genomic contexts, which can be beneficial for deciphering the taxonomic origin of ARGs. The currently commonly used metagenomic assembly tools metaSPAdes and MEGAHIT were able to identify the ARG repertoire but failed to fully recover the diversity of genomic contexts present in a sample. On top of that, in a complex scenario MEGAHIT produced very short contigs, which can lead to considerable underestimation of the resistome in a given sample.

conclusionsOur study shows that metaSPAdes and Trinity would be the preferable tools in terms of accuracy to recover correct genomic contexts around ARGs in metagenomic samples characterized by uneven coverages. Overall, the inability of assemblers to reconstruct long ARG-containing contigs has impacts on ARG quantification, suggesting that directly mapping reads to an ARG database should be performed as a complementary strategy to get accurate ARG abundance and diversity measures.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, MicrobialMetagenomicsDrug Resistance, BacterialGenes, BacterialMetagenomeAntibiotic resistance genesGenomic contextMetagenomic assembly

Identifiers

PMID39402510
PMCPMC11479545

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.