ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026
Benchmarking of Reference-Based Tools for Strain-Level Resolution of Plant Microbiome.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Strain-level identification of each microbe is crucial for understanding its role in the host. Most of the existing tools have primarily been evaluated on human metagenomic datasets, whereas the plant microbiome exhibits greater diversity and complexity and thus poses a challenge in the strain-level resolution of individual microbes. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive benchmarking of available reference-based tools for strain-level resolution of the plant microbiome. We evaluated seven tools on various performance parameters, like computational requirements, F1-score and relative abundances using synthetic datasets comprising microbes known to have strong associations with plants as well as real plant microbiome datasets. Our results demonstrated a better performance of StrainScan on the synthetic data, achieving higher F1-score and more accurate relative abundance estimates as compared to other tools, but its performance declined gradually with increasing strain diversity. However, StrainGE and StrainScan exhibited competitive performance on real plant metagenome data. Overall, though StrainGE exhibited better performance, it was more computationally expensive. However, StrainScan performed better in detecting low-abundance strains. Our findings suggest the comparative suitability of the available tools for the strain-level analysis of plant metagenome data and highlight the need for the development of more efficient and accurate taxonomic classifiers capable of handling the complex plant metagenome data while maintaining 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.