henhaobio
Sign in

Microbial GenomicsBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article

Whokaryote: distinguishing eukaryotic and prokaryotic contigs in metagenomes based on gene structure

Lotte J. U. PronkiD, Marnix H. MedemaiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Metagenomics has become a prominent technology to study the functional potential of all organisms in a microbial community. Most studies focus on the bacterial content of these communities, while ignoring eukaryotic microbes. Indeed, many metagenomics analysis pipelines silently assume that all contigs in a metagenome are prokaryotic. However, because of marked differences in gene structure, prokaryotic gene prediction tools fail to accurately predict eukaryotic genes. Here, we developed a classifier that distinguishes eukaryotic from prokaryotic contigs based on foundational differences between these taxa in gene structure. We first developed a random forest classifier that uses intergenic distance, gene density and gene length as the most important features. We show that, with an estimated accuracy of 97%, this classifier with principled features grounded in biology can perform almost as well as the classifiers EukRep and Tiara, which use k-mer frequencies as features. By re-training our classifier with Tiara predictions as additional feature, weaknesses of both types of classifiers are compensated; the result is an enhanced classifier that outperforms all individual classifiers, with an F1-score of 1.00 on precision, recall and accuracy for both eukaryotes and prokaryotes, while still being fast. In a reanalysis of metagenome data from a disease-suppressive plant endosphere microbial community, we show how using Whokaryote to select contigs for eukaryotic gene prediction facilitates the discovery of several biosynthetic gene clusters that were missed in the original study. Our enhanced classifier, which we call Whokaryote, is wrapped in an easily installable package and is freely available from https://git.wageningenur.nl/lotte.pronk/whokaryote.

Citations
59
FWCI
4.08
Field percentile
top 4%

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.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISHou '24Karlicki '21Peng '25Zhao '25Karin '20Belliardo '22
66% semantic matchBioinformatics
Shengwei Hou, Tianqi Tang, Siliangyu Cheng+5 more·NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics·Apr 4, 2024· 31 citations