ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Simulation of 69 microbial communities indicates sequencing depth and false positives are major drivers of bias in prokaryotic metagenome-assembled genome recovery.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- metaFun: An analysis pipeline for metagenomic big data with fast and unified functional searches.Gut microbes · 2026Article
- Whole metagenome sequencing: not deep enough for complete microbial function recovery.Microbiome · 2026Article
- Prokaryotic assemblages recovered by sedimentary DNA record natural and human-driven disturbances over the past 13 500 years in a cultural landscape.The ISME journal · 2026Article
- Interactions between phytoplankton and bacterioplankton communities in Caohai plateau lake, revealed by environmental DNA metagenomics.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Experimental systems are essential for strengthening ecological modeling of microbiomes beyond observational data.mSystems · 2025Review
- Vitamin biosynthesis in the gut: interplay between mammalian host and its resident microbiota.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We hypothesize that sample species abundance, sequencing depth, and taxonomic relatedness influence the recovery of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). To test this hypothesis, we assessed MAG recovery in three in silico microbial communities composed of 42 species with the same richness but different sample species abundance, sequencing depth, and taxonomic distribution profiles using three different pipelines for MAG recovery. The pipeline developed by Parks and colleagues (8K) generated the highest number of MAGs and the lowest number of true positives per community profile. The pipeline by Karst and colleagues (DT) showed the most accurate results (~ 92%), outperforming the 8K and Multi-Metagenome pipeline (MM) developed by Albertsen and collaborators. Sequencing depth influenced the accurate recovery of genomes when using the 8K and MM, even with contrasting patterns: the MM pipeline recovered more MAGs found in the original communities when employing sequencing depths up to 60 million reads, while the 8K recovered more true positives in communities sequenced above 60 million reads. DT showed the best species recovery from the same genus, even though close-related species have a low recovery rate in all pipelines. Our results highlight that more bins do not translate to the actual community composition and that sequencing depth plays a role in MAG recovery and increased community resolution. Even low MAG recovery error rates can significantly impact biological inferences. Our data indicates that the scientific community should curate their findings from MAG recovery, especially when asserting novel species or metabolic traits.
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.