Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41453206›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2026

An evaluation of computational methods for reconstruction of human viral DNA genomes.

Maria J P Sousa, Mari Toppinen, Lari Pyöriä, Klaus Hedman, Antti Sajantila, Maria F Perdomo, Diogo Pratas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Maria J P SousaInstitute of Electronics and Informatics Engineering of Aveiro and Intelligent Systems Associate Laboratory, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitario de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0009-0005-1372-9348
Mari ToppinenDepartment of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Kytösuontie 11, 00300 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1205-2399
Lari PyöriäDepartment of Virology and Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00290, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9504-5807
Klaus HedmanDepartment of Virology and Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00290, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1779-7960
Antti SajantilaDepartment of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Kytösuontie 11, 00300 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-4117-5248
Maria F PerdomoDepartment of Virology and Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00290, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9031-4251
Diogo PratasInstitute of Electronics and Informatics Engineering of Aveiro and Intelligent Systems Associate Laboratory, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitario de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1176-552X

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UI/BD/154658/2023Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UID/00127/2025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing availability of viral sequencing data has led to the emergence of many optimized viral genome reconstruction tools. Given that the number of new tools is steadily increasing, it is complex to identify functional and optimized tools that offer an equilibrium between accuracy and computational resources, as well as the features that each tool provides.

resultsIn this article, we surveyed open-source computational tools (including pipelines) used for human viral genome reconstruction, identifying specific characteristics, features, similarities, and dissimilarities between these tools. For quantitative comparison, we created an open-source reconstruction benchmark based on viral data. The benchmark was executed using both synthetic and real datasets. With the former, we evaluated the effects on the reconstruction process of using different human DNA viruses with simulated mutation rates, contamination and mitochondrial DNA inclusion, and various coverage depths. Each reconstruction program was also evaluated using real datasets, demonstrating their performance in real-life scenarios. The evaluation measures include the identity, a normalized compression semi-distance, and the normalized relative compression between the genomes before and after reconstruction, as well as metrics regarding the length of the genomes reconstructed, computational time, and resources spent by each tool.

conclusionsWe provide a fully reproducible benchmark capable of evaluating currently available reconstruction programs. The benchmark is open-source and freely available at https://github.com/viromelab/HVRS. Additionally, based on the knowledge obtained from the systematic review and the benchmark, we provide some program recommendations for different reconstruction scenarios.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDNA, ViralGenome, ViralGenomicsGenome, HumanHumansSoftwareDNA, Viralhuman viral genomesreproducibilitysequence assemblysurveyviral reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID41453206
PMCPMC12927430

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.