ArticleGigaScience2026
An evaluation of computational methods for reconstruction of human viral DNA genomes.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evaluation of computational methods for reconstruction of human viral DNA genomes.GigaScience · 2026Article
- Genomic characterization and phylogenetic placement of Matryoshka RNA virus 1 associated with Plasmodium vivax malaria in Africa.Access microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.