Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055808›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2025

Challenges in capturing the mycobiome from shotgun metagenome data: lack of software and databases.

Ekaterina Avershina, Arfa Irej Qureshi, Hanne C Winther-Larsen, Trine B Rounge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fungal ecology in the age of 'omics.The New phytologist · 2026
    Review
  8. Genomic insights intoMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Yeasts in the gastrointestinal tract.FEMS yeast research · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Microbial dysbiosis in cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Ekaterina AvershinaDepartment of Tumor Biology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Arfa Irej QureshiDepartment of Pharmacy, Section for Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Hanne C Winther-LarsenDepartment of Pharmacy, Section for Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Trine B RoungeDepartment of Tumor Biology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. t.b.rounge@farmasi.uio.no.

Funding

Helse Sør-Øst RHF 2022067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe mycobiome, representing the fungal component of microbial communities, is increasingly acknowledged as an integral part of the gut microbiome. However, research in this area remains relatively limited. The characterization of mycobiome taxa from metagenomic data is heavily reliant on the quality of the software and databases. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of mycobiome profiling using existing bioinformatics tools on simulated fungal metagenomic data.

resultsWe identified seven tools claiming to perform taxonomic assignment of fungal shotgun metagenomic sequences. One of these was outdated and required substantial modifications of the code to be functional and was thus excluded. To evaluate the accuracy of identification and relative abundance of the remaining tools (Kraken2, MetaPhlAn4, EukDetect, FunOMIC, MiCoP, and HumanMycobiomeScan), we constructed 18 mock communities of varying species richness and abundance levels. The mock communities comprised up to 165 fungal species belonging to the phyla Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, commonly found in gut microbiomes. Of the tools, FunOMIC and HumanMycobiomeScan needed source code modifications to run. Notably, only one species, Candida orthopsilosis, was consistently identified by all tools across all communities where it was included. Increasing community richness improved precision of Kraken2 and the relative abundance accuracy of all tools on species, genus, and family levels. MetaPhlAn4 accurately identified all genera present in the communities and FunOMIC identified most species. The top three tools for overall accuracy in both identification and relative abundance estimation were EukDetect, MiCoP, and FunOMIC, respectively. Adding 90% and 99% bacterial background did not significantly impact these tools' performance. Among the whole genome reference tools (Kraken2, HMS, and MiCoP), MiCoP exhibited the highest accuracy when the same reference database was used.

conclusionOur survey of mycobiome-specific software revealed a very limited selection of such tools and their poor robustness due to error-prone software, along with a significant lack of comprehensive databases enabling characterization of the mycobiome. None of the implemented tools fully agreed on the mock community profiles. FunOMIC recognized most of the species, but EukDetect and MiCoP provided predictions that were closest to the correct compositions. The bacterial background did not impact these tools' performance. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

FungiGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMetagenomeMetagenomicsMycobiomeSoftwareComputational BiologyHumansDatabasesFungiGenomeMicrobiomeMycobiomeShotgun metagenome sequencingSoftware

Identifiers

PMID40055808
PMCPMC11887097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.