ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2025
Cultivated genome references for protein database construction and high-resolution taxonomic annotation in metaproteomics.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metaproteomics offers a profound understanding of the functional dynamics of the gut microbiome, which is crucial for personalized healthcare strategies. The selection of an appropriate database is a critical step for the identification of peptides and proteins, as well as for the provision of accurate taxonomic and functional annotations. The matched metagenomic-derived database is considered to be the best, but its limitations include the identification of low-abundance organisms and taxonomic resolution. Herein, we constructed a protein database (DBCGR2) based on Cultivated Genome Reference 2 (CGR2) and developed a complete peptide-centric analysis workflow for database searching and for the annotation of taxonomy and function. This workflow was subsequently appraised in comparison with metagenomics-derived databases for the analysis of metaproteomic data. Our findings suggested that the performance of DBCGR2 in identification was comparable with metagenomics-derived databases with improvement in identification rates of peptides from low-abundance species. The database searching results could be fully annotated using the pepTaxa taxonomic annotation approach developed in this study, and the taxonomic resolution was enhanced to strain level. Additionally, the results demonstrated that the sensitivity of functional annotation could be enhanced by employing DBCGR2. Overall, the DBCGR2 combined with pepTaxa can be considered an alternative for metaproteomic data analysis with superior analysis performances.IMPORTANCEMass spectrometry-based metaproteomics offers a profound understanding of the gut microbial taxonomy and functionality. The databases utilized in the analysis of metaproteomic data are crucial, as they determine the identification of proteins that can be recognized and linked to overall human health, in addition to the quality of taxonomic and functional annotation. Among the most effective approaches for constructing protein databases is the utilization of metagenomic sequencing to create matched databases. However, the database, derived from isolated genomes, has yet to undergo rigorous testing for their efficacy and accuracy in protein identification and taxonomic and functional annotation. Here, we constructed a protein database DBCGR2 derived from Cultivated Genome Reference 2 (CGR2) and a complete workflow for data analysis. We compared the performances of DBCGR2 and metagenomics-derived databases. Our results indicated that DBCGR2 can be regarded as an alternative to metagenomics-derived databases, which contribute to metaproteomic data analysis.
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.