ArticleGenome biology2026
Benchmarking alignment strategies for Hi-C reads in metagenomic Hi-C data.
Article in Genome biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking alignment strategies for Hi-C reads in metagenomic Hi-C data.Genome biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetagenomics combined with High-throughput Chromosome Conformation Capture (Hi-C) provides a powerful approach to study microbial communities by linking genomic content with spatial interactions. Hi-C complements shotgun sequencing by revealing taxonomic composition, functional interactions, and genomic organization within a single sample. However, aligning Hi-C reads to metagenomic contigs is challenging due to variable insert sizes of Hi-C paired-end reads, multi-species complexity, and gaps in assemblies. Although several benchmark studies have evaluated general alignment tools and Hi-C data alignment, none have specifically focused on metagenomic Hi-C data.
resultsWe evaluated seven alignment strategies commonly used in Hi-C analyses: BWA MEM -5SP, BWA MEM default, BWA aln default, Bowtie2 default, Bowtie2 -very-sensitive-local, Minimap2 default, and Chromap Hi-C default. We benchmarked these tools on one synthetic dataset and seven real-world environments. Performance was assessed based on the number of inter-contig Hi-C read pairs and their impact on downstream tasks, such as binning quality.
conclusionsWe show that BWA MEM -5SP generally outperformed all other tools across most environments in terms of inter-contig read pairs and binning quality, followed by BWA MEM default. Chromap and Minimap2, while less effective in these metrics, demonstrated the highest computational efficiency.
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.