ArticleBMC bioinformatics2024
Plaseval: a framework for comparing and evaluating plasmid detection tools.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to 'On using clustering statistics for assessing plasmid binning tools accuracy'.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- On using clustering statistics for assessing plasmid binning tools accuracy.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Circling in on plasmids: benchmarking plasmid detection and reconstruction tools for short-read data from diverse species.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlasmids play a major role in the transfer of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes among bacteria via horizontal gene transfer. The identification of plasmids in short-read assemblies is a challenging problem and a very active research area. Plasmid binning aims at detecting, in a draft genome assembly, groups (bins) of contigs likely to originate from the same plasmid. Several methods for plasmid binning have been developed recently, such as PlasBin-flow, HyAsP, gplas, MOB-suite, and plasmidSPAdes. This motivates the problem of evaluating the performances of plasmid binning methods, either against a given ground truth or between them.
resultsWe describe PlasEval, a novel method aimed at comparing the results of plasmid binning tools. PlasEval computes a dissimilarity measure between two sets of plasmid bins, that can originate either from two plasmid binning tools, or from a plasmid binning tool and a ground truth set of plasmid bins. The PlasEval dissimilarity accounts for the contig content of plasmid bins, the length of contigs and is repeat-aware. Moreover, the dissimilarity score computed by PlasEval is broken down into several parts, that allows to understand qualitative differences between the compared sets of plasmid bins. We illustrate the use of PlasEval by benchmarking four recently developed plasmid binning tools-PlasBin-flow, HyAsP, gplas, and MOB-recon-on a data set of 53 E. coli bacterial genomes.
conclusionAnalysis of the results of plasmid binning methods using PlasEval shows that their behaviour varies significantly. PlasEval can be used to decide which specific plasmid binning method should be used for a specific dataset. The disagreement between different methods also suggests that the problem of plasmid binning on short-read contigs requires further research. We believe that PlasEval can prove to be an effective tool in this regard. PlasEval is publicly available at https://github.com/acme92/PlasEval.
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.