Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41269281›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025

Evaluation of metagenome binning: advances and challenges.

Arangasamy Yazhini, Étienne Morice, Annika Jochheim, Benjamin Lieser, Johannes Söding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Arangasamy YazhiniQuantitative and Computational Biology, Max-Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.
Étienne MoriceQuantitative and Computational Biology, Max-Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.
Annika JochheimQuantitative and Computational Biology, Max-Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.
Benjamin LieserQuantitative and Computational Biology, Max-Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.
Johannes SödingQuantitative and Computational Biology, Max-Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

Horizon Europe programme of the European Union and from the Max Planck SocietyMarie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 101111457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several recent deep learning methods for metagenome binning claim improvements in the recovery of high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes. These methods differ in their approaches to learn the contig embeddings and to cluster them. Rapid advances in binning require rigorous benchmarking to evaluate the effectiveness of new methods. We have benchmarked newly developed state-of-the-art deep learning binners on CAMI2 and real metagenomic datasets. The results show that SemiBin2 and COMEBin give the best binning performance, although not always the best embedding accuracy. Interestingly, post-binning reassembly consistently improves the quality of low-coverage bins. We find that binning coassembled contigs with multi-sample coverage is effective for low-coverage dataset, while binning sample-wise assembled contigs with multi-sample coverage (multi-sample) is effective for high-coverage samples. In multi-sample binning, splitting the embedding space by sample before clustering showed enhanced performance compared with the standard approach of splitting final clusters by sample. Deep-learning binners using contrastive models emerged as the top-performing tools overall, with MetaBAT2 and GenomeFace demonstrating superior speed. To facilitate future development, we provide workflows for standardized benchmarking of metagenome binners.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMetagenomeMetagenomicsAlgorithmsComputational BiologyHumansbinning benchmarkingdeep learning binnersMAGsmetagenomicsmicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID41269281
PMCPMC12636519

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.