ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Phage bioinformatics tools: a review of computational approaches for bacteriophage research.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rising clinical interest in phage therapy and the exponential growth of metagenomic sequence catalogues have driven a rapid expansion of bacteriophage bioinformatics. More than 80 dedicated tools, mostly published since 2020, now span identification, assembly, annotation, taxonomy, lifestyle prediction, defence-system detection, and host prediction. Aimed at experienced practitioners and developers, this review synthesizes the field through the lens of three successive computational paradigms: sequence homology, bounded by database completeness; machine learning, constrained by labelled training data; and foundation models, which now achieve Matthews correlation coefficients above 0.95 in identification tasks and, through structure-informed prediction, raise functional annotation to over half of phage genes. Furthermore, we map the upstream components, namely, gene callers, homology engines, protein language models, and structural search tools, that underpin most downstream pipelines, exposing shared infrastructure and ecosystem-level fragility when dependencies change. To translate this into practice, we propose web-based and command-line reference workflows calibrated to user expertise and sample types. Finally, we set an agenda for the next wave of tool development. Roughly half of phage genes still resist functional annotation despite structural methods; no broadly generalizable strain-level host predictor exists for phage therapy; varying true-positive rates (0%-97%) underscore the absence of standardized community benchmarks analogous to Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction or Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation. As generative genome models begin designing synthetic phages, progress will depend less on producing standalone tools than on rigorous evaluation, interoperable infrastructure, and clinically meaningful prediction targets.
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.