ArticleBMC genomics2026
Benchmarking the impact of reference genome selection on taxonomic profiling accuracy.
Article in BMC genomics, 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.
- Detection ofFood chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decades, genome databases have expanded exponentially, often incorporating highly similar genomes at the same taxonomic level. This redundancy can hinder taxonomic classification, leading to difficulties distinguishing between closely related sequences and increasing computational demands. While some novel taxonomic classification tools address this redundancy by selecting a subset of genomes as references, insights regarding the impact of different reference genome selection methods across taxonomic classification tools are lacking.
resultsWe systematically evaluate genome selection and dereplication methods on bacterial and viral datasets using simulated metagenomic samples and a bacterial mock community. For bacterial species-level profiling, incorporating all available genomes generally yields the highest accuracy, while having a limited impact on computational resource usage. In contrast, for highly similar bacterial strain-level and SARS-CoV-2 lineage-level datasets we find that selection significantly improves abundance estimation accuracy. Incorporating location-based metadata further enhances viral profiling performance by prioritizing locally relevant genomes. Across viral experiments, smaller reference sets significantly reduce memory and runtime requirements during both indexing and profiling, although this comes at an additional pre-processing cost.
conclusionsReference genome selection influences both accuracy and computational efficiency in taxonomic profiling, but its benefits seem context- and resolution-dependent. Our results demonstrate that reference set design does not have a one-size-fits-all solution, and that selection strategies should be adapted based on the biological and computational setting.
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.