bioRxivBioinformaticsPreprint
Evaluating performance of metagenomic characterization algorithms using in silico datasets generated with FASTQSim
Abstract
BackgroundIn silico bacterial, viral, and human truth datasets were generated to evaluate available metagenomics algorithms. Sequenced datasets include background organisms, creating ambiguity in the true source organism for each read. Bacterial and viral datasets were created with even and staggered coverage to evaluate organism identification, read mapping, and gene identification capabilities of available algorithms. These truth datasets are provided as a resource for the development and refinement of metagenomic algorithms. Algorithm performance on these truth datasets can inform decision makers on strengths and weaknesses of available algorithms and how the results may be best leveraged for bacterial and viral organism identification and characterization.\n\nSource organisms were selected to mirror communities described in the Human Microbiome Project as well as the emerging pathogens listed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The six in silico datasets were used to evaluate the performance of six leading metagenomics algorithms: MetaScope, Kraken, LMAT, MetaPhlAn, MetaCV, and MetaPhyler.\n\nResultsAlgorithms were evaluated on runtime, true positive organisms identified to the genus and species levels, false positive organisms identified to genus and species level, read mapping, relative abundance estimation, and gene calling. No algorithm out performed the others in all categories, and the algorithm or algorithms of choice strongly depends on analysis goals. MetaPhlAn excels for bacteria and LMAT for viruses. The algorithms were ranked by overall performance using a normalized weighted sum of the above metrics, and MetaScope emerged as the overall winner, followed by Kraken and LMAT.\n\nConclusionsSimulated FASTQ datasets with well-characterized truth data about microbial community composition reveal numerous insights about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the metagenomics algorithms evaluated. The simulated datasets are available to download from the Sequence Read Archive (SRP062063).
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- The META tool optimizes metagenomic analyses across sequencing platforms and classifiers.
Robert A. Player, Angeline Aguinaldo, … Christopher E. Bradburne·Frontiers in BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 6, 2023
- Rapid terabase-scale simulation of realistic metagenomes for experimental design and pathogen detection with RandomReadsMG
Brian Bushnell, Frederik Schulz, Juan C. Villada·bioRxiv·Jul 18, 2025
- MetaGenomic analysis of short and long reads
Felix Manske, Norbert Grundmann, Wojciech Makałowski·bioRxiv·Mar 13, 2020
- An evaluation of the accuracy and speed of metagenome analysis tools
Stinus Lindgreen, Karen L Adair, Paul Gardner·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Jan 18, 2016
- CAMISIM: Simulating metagenomes and microbial communities
Adrian Fritz, Peter Hofmann, … Alice Carolyn McHardy·MicrobiomePeer-reviewed·Feb 8, 2019
- From defaults to databases: parameter and database choice dramatically impact the performance of metagenomic taxonomic classification tools
Robyn Wright, A. Comeau, Morgan G. I. Langille·Microbial GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Mar 3, 2023