Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 870

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation—a benchmark of metagenomics software

Open access
Sczyrba, Alexander, Hofmann, Peter, Belmann, Peter, Koslicki, David, Janssen, Stefan, Dröge, Johannes, Gregor, Ivan, Majda, Stephan, Fiedler, Jessika, Dahms, Eik, Bremges, Andreas, Fritz, Adrian, Garrido-Oter, Ruben, Jørgensen, Tue Sparholt, Shapiro, Nicole, Blood, Philip D, Gurevich, Alexey, Bai, Yang, Turaev, Dmitrij, DeMaere, Matthew Z, Chikhi, Rayan, Nagarajan, Niranjan, Quince, Christopher, Meyer, Fernando, Balvočiūtė, Monika, Hansen, Lars Hestbjerg, Sørensen, Søren J, Chia, Burton K H, Denis, Bertrand, Froula, Jeff L, Wang, Zhong, Egan, Robert, Don Kang, Dongwan, Cook, Jeffrey J, Deltel, Charles, Beckstette, Michael, Lemaitre, Claire, Peterlongo, Pierre, Rizk, Guillaume, Lavenier, Dominique, Wu, Yu-Wei, Singer, Steven W, Jain, Chirag, Strous, Marc, Klingenberg, Heiner, Meinicke, Peter, Barton, Michael D, Lingner, Thomas, Lin, Hsin-Hung, Liao, Yu-Chieh, Silva, Genivaldo Gueiros Z, Cuevas, Daniel A, Edwards, Robert A, Saha, Surya, Piro, Vitor C, Renard, Bernhard Y, Pop, Mihai, Klenk, Hans-Peter, Göker, Markus, Kyrpides, Nikos C, Woyke, Tanja, Vorholt, Julia A, Schulze-Lefert, Paul, Rubin, Edward M, Darling, Aaron E, Rattei, Thomas, McHardy, Alice C·2017·Nature Methods
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.4458
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract In metagenome analysis, computational methods for assembly, taxonomic profiling and binning are key components facilitating downstream biological data interpretation. However, a lack of consensus about benchmarking datasets and evaluation metrics complicates proper performance assessment. The Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation (CAMI) challenge has engaged the global developer community to benchmark their programs on datasets of unprecedented complexity and realism. Benchmark metagenomes were generated from ~700 newly sequenced microorganisms and ~600 novel viruses and plasmids, including genomes with varying degrees of relatedness to each other and to publicly available ones and representing common experimental setups. Across all datasets, assembly and genome binning programs performed well for species represented by individual genomes, while performance was substantially affected by the presence of related strains. Taxonomic profiling and binning programs were proficient at high taxonomic ranks, with a notable performance decrease below the family level. Parameter settings substantially impacted performances, underscoring the importance of program reproducibility. While highlighting current challenges in computational metagenomics, the CAMI results provide a roadmap for software selection to answer specific research questions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.4458

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 870

Metadata

Authors
Sczyrba, A., Hofmann, P., Belmann, P., Koslicki, D., Janssen, S., Dröge, J., Gregor, I., Majda, S., Fiedler, J., Dahms, E., Bremges, A., Fritz, A., Garrido-Oter, R., Jørgensen, T. S., Shapiro, N., Blood, P. D., Gurevich, A., Bai, Y., Turaev, D., DeMaere, M. Z., Chikhi, R., Nagarajan, N., Quince, C., Meyer, F., Balvočiūtė, M., Hansen, L. H., Sørensen, S. J., Chia, B. K. H., Denis, B., Froula, J. L., Wang, Z., Egan, R., Don Kang, D., Cook, J. J., Deltel, C., Beckstette, M., Lemaitre, C., Peterlongo, P., Rizk, G., Lavenier, D., Wu, Y.-W., Singer, S. W., Jain, C., Strous, M., Klingenberg, H., Meinicke, P., Barton, M. D., Lingner, T., Lin, H.-H., Liao, Y.-C., Silva, G. G. Z., Cuevas, D. A., Edwards, R. A., Saha, S., Piro, V. C., Renard, B. Y., Pop, M., Klenk, H.-P., Göker, M., Kyrpides, N. C., Woyke, T., Vorholt, J. A., Schulze-Lefert, P., Rubin, E. M., Darling, A. E., Rattei, T., & McHardy, A. C.
Venue
Nature Methods
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-10-02
Volume
14
Issue
11
Pages
1063-1071
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
DOI
10.1038/nmeth.4458
OpenAlex
W2773939681
Cited by
870
References
8
FWCI
33.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.