Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39804694›Full record

ArticleMicrobial genomics2025

Impact of simulation and reference catalogues on the evaluation of taxonomic profiling pipelines.

Vadim Puller, Florian Plaza Oñate, Edi Prifti, Raynald de Lahondès

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

4 authors.

Vadim PullerGMT Science 75 route de Lyons-La-Foret, Rouen F-76000, France.
Florian Plaza OñateGMT Science 75 route de Lyons-La-Foret, Rouen F-76000, France.
Edi PriftiIRD, Sorbonne Universit, Unit de Modlisation Mathmatique et Informatique des Systmes Complexes, UMMISCO, 32 Avenue Henri Varagnat, Bondy F-93143, France.
Raynald de LahondèsGMT Science 75 route de Lyons-La-Foret, Rouen F-76000, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbiome profiling tools rely on reference catalogues, which significantly affect their performance. Comparing them is, however, challenging, mainly due to differences in their native catalogues. In this study, we present a novel standardized benchmarking framework that makes such comparisons more accurate. We decided not to customize databases but to translate results to a common reference to use the tools with their native environment. Specifically, we conducted two realistic simulations of gut microbiome samples, each based on a specific taxonomic profiler, and used two different taxonomic references to project their results, namely the Genome Taxonomy Database and the Unified Human Gastrointestinal Genome. To demonstrate the importance of using such a framework, we evaluated four established profilers as well as the impact of the simulations and that of the common taxonomic references on the perceived performance of these profilers. Finally, we provide guidelines to enhance future profiler comparisons for human microbiome ecosystems: (i) use or create realistic simulations tailored to your biological context (BC), (ii) identify a common feature space suited to your BC and independent of the catalogues used by the profilers and (iii) apply a comprehensive set of metrics covering accuracy (sensitivity/precision), overall representativity (richness/Shannon) and quantification (UniFrac and/or Aitchison distance).

Indexed as

BacteriaGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMetagenomicsBenchmarkingComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumansMicrobiotabiasgut microbiomeprofiling toolreference cataloguessimulation

Identifiers

PMID39804694
PMCPMC11728698

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.