ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Evaluation of metagenome binning: advances and challenges.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MetaCAT enables reconstruction of high-quality microbial genomes and their association with host traits from metagenomic data.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Genome-resolved metagenomic survey of 500 samples from 56 hot springs across the Western US.Scientific data · 2026Article
- The Role of Nucleotide Sequencing in Natural Product Drug Discovery.Journal of natural products · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.