Cargando…
Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data
BACKGROUND: The prediction of bacteriophage sequences in metagenomic datasets has become a topic of considerable interest, leading to the development of many novel bioinformatic tools. A comparative analysis of ten state-of-the-art phage identification tools was performed to inform their usage in mi...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37085924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-023-01533-x |
_version_ | 1785029155527589888 |
---|---|
author | Ho, Siu Fung Stanley Wheeler, Nicole E. Millard, Andrew D. van Schaik, Willem |
author_facet | Ho, Siu Fung Stanley Wheeler, Nicole E. Millard, Andrew D. van Schaik, Willem |
author_sort | Ho, Siu Fung Stanley |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The prediction of bacteriophage sequences in metagenomic datasets has become a topic of considerable interest, leading to the development of many novel bioinformatic tools. A comparative analysis of ten state-of-the-art phage identification tools was performed to inform their usage in microbiome research. METHODS: Artificial contigs generated from complete RefSeq genomes representing phages, plasmids, and chromosomes, and a previously sequenced mock community containing four phage species, were used to evaluate the precision, recall, and F1 scores of the tools. We also generated a dataset of randomly shuffled sequences to quantify false-positive calls. In addition, a set of previously simulated viromes was used to assess diversity bias in each tool’s output. RESULTS: VIBRANT and VirSorter2 achieved the highest F1 scores (0.93) in the RefSeq artificial contigs dataset, with several other tools also performing well. Kraken2 had the highest F1 score (0.86) in the mock community benchmark by a large margin (0.3 higher than DeepVirFinder in second place), mainly due to its high precision (0.96). Generally, k-mer-based tools performed better than reference similarity tools and gene-based methods. Several tools, most notably PPR-Meta, called a high number of false positives in the randomly shuffled sequences. When analysing the diversity of the genomes that each tool predicted from a virome set, most tools produced a viral genome set that had similar alpha- and beta-diversity patterns to the original population, with Seeker being a notable exception. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key metrics used to assess performance of phage detection tools, offers a framework for further comparison of additional viral discovery tools, and discusses optimal strategies for using these tools. We highlight that the choice of tool for identification of phages in metagenomic datasets, as well as their parameters, can bias the results and provide pointers for different use case scenarios. We have also made our benchmarking dataset available for download in order to facilitate future comparisons of phage identification tools. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40168-023-01533-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10120246 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101202462023-04-22 Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data Ho, Siu Fung Stanley Wheeler, Nicole E. Millard, Andrew D. van Schaik, Willem Microbiome Methodology BACKGROUND: The prediction of bacteriophage sequences in metagenomic datasets has become a topic of considerable interest, leading to the development of many novel bioinformatic tools. A comparative analysis of ten state-of-the-art phage identification tools was performed to inform their usage in microbiome research. METHODS: Artificial contigs generated from complete RefSeq genomes representing phages, plasmids, and chromosomes, and a previously sequenced mock community containing four phage species, were used to evaluate the precision, recall, and F1 scores of the tools. We also generated a dataset of randomly shuffled sequences to quantify false-positive calls. In addition, a set of previously simulated viromes was used to assess diversity bias in each tool’s output. RESULTS: VIBRANT and VirSorter2 achieved the highest F1 scores (0.93) in the RefSeq artificial contigs dataset, with several other tools also performing well. Kraken2 had the highest F1 score (0.86) in the mock community benchmark by a large margin (0.3 higher than DeepVirFinder in second place), mainly due to its high precision (0.96). Generally, k-mer-based tools performed better than reference similarity tools and gene-based methods. Several tools, most notably PPR-Meta, called a high number of false positives in the randomly shuffled sequences. When analysing the diversity of the genomes that each tool predicted from a virome set, most tools produced a viral genome set that had similar alpha- and beta-diversity patterns to the original population, with Seeker being a notable exception. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key metrics used to assess performance of phage detection tools, offers a framework for further comparison of additional viral discovery tools, and discusses optimal strategies for using these tools. We highlight that the choice of tool for identification of phages in metagenomic datasets, as well as their parameters, can bias the results and provide pointers for different use case scenarios. We have also made our benchmarking dataset available for download in order to facilitate future comparisons of phage identification tools. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40168-023-01533-x. BioMed Central 2023-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10120246/ /pubmed/37085924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-023-01533-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Ho, Siu Fung Stanley Wheeler, Nicole E. Millard, Andrew D. van Schaik, Willem Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data |
title | Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data |
title_full | Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data |
title_fullStr | Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data |
title_full_unstemmed | Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data |
title_short | Gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data |
title_sort | gauge your phage: benchmarking of bacteriophage identification tools in metagenomic sequencing data |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37085924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-023-01533-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hosiufungstanley gaugeyourphagebenchmarkingofbacteriophageidentificationtoolsinmetagenomicsequencingdata AT wheelernicolee gaugeyourphagebenchmarkingofbacteriophageidentificationtoolsinmetagenomicsequencingdata AT millardandrewd gaugeyourphagebenchmarkingofbacteriophageidentificationtoolsinmetagenomicsequencingdata AT vanschaikwillem gaugeyourphagebenchmarkingofbacteriophageidentificationtoolsinmetagenomicsequencingdata |