Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40615445›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Testing the limits of short-reads metagenomic classifications programs in wastewater treating microbial communities.

Leandro Di Gloria, Lorenzo Casbarra, Tommaso Lotti, Matteo Ramazzotti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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.

Leandro Di GloriaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Lorenzo CasbarraDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Tommaso LottiDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Matteo RamazzottiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. matteo.ramazzotti@unifi.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological wastewater treatment processes, such as activated sludge (AS) and aerobic granular sludge (AGS), have proven to be crucial systems for achieving both efficient waste purification and the recovery of valuable resources like poly-hydroxy-alkanoates. Gaining a deeper understanding of the microbial communities underpinning these technologies would enable their optimization, ultimately reducing costs and increasing efficiency. To support this research, we quantitatively compared classification methods differing in read length (raw reads, contigs and MAGs), overall search approach (Kaiju, Kraken2, RiboFrame and kMetaShot), as well as source databases to assess the classification performances at both the genus and species levels using an in silico-generated mock community designed to provide a simplified yet comprehensive representation of the complex microbial ecosystems found in AS and AGS. Particular attention was given to the misclassification of eukaryotes as bacteria and vice versa, as well as the occurrence of false negatives. Notably, Kaiju emerged as the most accurate classifier at both the genus and species levels, followed by RiboFrame and kMetaShot. However, our findings highlight the substantial risk of misclassification across all classifiers and databases, which could significantly hinder the advancement of these technologies by introducing noises and mistakes for key microbial clades.

Indexed as

BacteriaMetagenomeMetagenomicsMicrobiotaWastewaterSewageSewageWastewaterAerobic granular sludgeBenchmarkClassificationsMicrobial communityWastewater

Identifiers

PMID40615445
PMCPMC12227777

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.