ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Hunting for Helminths: short- and long-read shotgun metagenomics for helminth detection in faecal samples.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) pose significant challenges to public health in endemic areas, necessitating reliable methods for their detection. Shotgun metagenomics enables simultaneous detection of STHs and microbes in a sample without prior knowledge of what is present. However, validation of shotgun metagenomics with known infection intensity or across different sequencing platforms has not been carried out for eukaryote parasites including STHs, and false positives remain a pervasive issue. We validated shotgun metagenomics as a method of STH detection in faecal samples. Using the Strongyloides ratti laboratory model of a STH infection we investigated how analytical methods (nucleotide-nucleotide matching, nucleotide-protein matching, marker gene detection, mitochondrial mapping), infection intensity (low and standard laboratory doses) and sequencing technology (short-read vs. long-read) affects sensitivity and specificity of detection. S. ratti was accurately detected at a standard laboratory dose, but low intensity infection were more difficult to detect. Only mitochondrial sequence mapping was 100% accurate at identifying S. ratti with no false positives. Overall, short-read outperformed long-read sequencing methods. We applied the same analytical methods to human faecal samples with confirmed infections for at least one of four STHs. Mitochondrial sequence mapping was also the most effective method for detecting STHs in human faecal samples, detecting 100% of Necator americanus and 92% of Ascaris spp. infections, but could not reliably detect STHs where DNA levels are expected to be low or variable. In conclusion, mitochondrial mapping was the most effective method of detection for sensitivity and specificity in both the laboratory system and human faecal samples. Our findings indicate that shotgun metagenomics should be approached cautiously using validated methods, particularly when infection intensity or DNA levels are expected to be low.
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.