ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Circling in on plasmids: benchmarking plasmid detection and reconstruction tools for short-read data from diverse species.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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.
- Pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from recreational waters in northwestern Wyoming display multidrug resistance.Journal of applied microbiology · 2026Article
- Gut Hi-C metagenomes of severe COVID-19 patients: bacteria and yeast involved in gut-lung axis.mSphere · 2026Article
- Response to 'On using clustering statistics for assessing plasmid binning tools accuracy'.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- On using clustering statistics for assessing plasmid binning tools accuracy.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to detect and reconstruct plasmids from genome assemblies is crucial for studying the evolution and spread of antimicrobial resistance and virulence in bacteria. Though long-read sequencing technologies have made reconstructing plasmids easier, most (97%) of the bacterial genome assemblies in the public domain are generated from short-read data. Work to compare plasmid reconstruction tools has focused primarily on Escherichia coli, leaving gaps in our understanding of how well these tools perform on other, less well-characterized, taxa. Using high-quality assemblies as ground truth, we benchmarked 12 plasmid detection tools (which identify plasmid contigs in assemblies) and four plasmid reconstruction tools (which group contigs from the same plasmid together). We tested their ability to characterize diverse plasmids from short-read assemblies representing a wide range of Enterobacterales and Enterococcus species, including newly discovered and poorly characterized species collected from nonhuman hosts. Plasmer, PlasmidEC, PlaScope, and gplas2 were the highest-scoring plasmid detection tools, performing well for both Enterobacterales and enterococci. The two major determinants of accurate plasmid detection were representation in plasmid databases-with Enterobacterales plasmids being more easily detected than those from enterococci-and assembly contiguity, which was also key for successful plasmid reconstruction. Gplas2 performed best for plasmid reconstruction; however, less than half of plasmids were perfectly reconstructed, suggesting that substantial room for improvement remains in this class of tools.
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.