ArticleScientific reports2025
Testing the limits of short-reads metagenomic classifications programs in wastewater treating microbial communities.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the ecological drivers of bacteriophage diversity and functional viral potential in the skin of the axolotl Ambystoma altamirani.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2026Article
- Metagenomic profiling of pathogens and antibiotic resistome in influent of six municipal wastewater treatment plants: a descriptive analysis of plant-specific microbial hazards.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Acute Respiratory Infections (ARIs): Current Etiological Perspectives and Advances in Viral Metagenomics-A Review.Viruses · 2025Review
- Human DNA hijacking microbiota surveys: causes and consequences in colon related 16s rRNA amplicon sequencing.Gut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.